So would he have run?

[Fisherman]

Fish,

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

Cheers
DRoy

That will depend on what other suspect you compare with. And on which poster you ask. Myself, I prefer down-to-ground practical evidence to lofty hopes of the police perhaps having had a grudge against a suspect, if you take my meaning.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

I can only see one man running here, David. Please go back to the "Why did Abberline believe Hutch?"-thread, and answer the question I put to you there. As it stands, you have accused posters of doing things that have not been done and then you have avoided to apologize for it.

You are on the run, in other words.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

distance

Hello Edward.

"That Llewellyn judged the time of death as being almost exactly the time that Paul met Lechmere."

Ready for the inevitable sermon on LVP timekeeping?

"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."

Distance?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;295975]D Roy

Hi Lech,

The case for Lechmere being the murderer is based on his timing for leaving home giving him the opportunity.

I wonder how many others shared the same time of work? How many others could leave their abode at any time? Etc.

That he should have been at least a quarter of a mile in front of Paul, not 40 yards.

A quarter of a mile isn't that far of a distance, especially if he was off on his time by a couple/few minutes.

That Llewellyn judged the time of death as being almost exactly the time that Paul met Lechmere.

Since he arrived so closely after the murder, how off could he really be?

I won't go on because this is a thread on whether he'd run. But I can summarize and say yes in my opinion anyone guilty of anything could act and say the exact same things Lech did. I just threw out affair but it could be a lot of things he was guilty of and he was saving his ass by saying and acting the way he did.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Hi DRoy!

I realize that you are asking Lechmere these questions, but I will butt in and give my meaning if you donīt much mind.

I wonder how many others shared the same time of work? How many others could leave their abode at any time? Etc.

Not many enough to produce a single person on the streets Lechmere walked from Doveton Street to Buckīs Row. Not one! That would have represented roughly a seven minute trek, and Lechmere said afterwards that he did not see a single person until Paul ran into him.
I think that provides a rough but useful insight into the matter - by and large, the smaller streets of the East End were abandoned at these hours.
And if this holds true for George Yard, Hanbury Street and Dorset Street too, then we really need to get worried.

A quarter of a mile isn't that far of a distance, especially if he was off on his time by a couple/few minutes.

Lechmere said - depending on what source you use - that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30.
Of course, since we know that he said that he was late, it can be reasoned that he said that he USUALLY left at 3.20, but this morning he was late and started out at 3.30.
Any which way, if he started out at 3.20, he should have been in Buckīs Row at 3.27, justaboutish, and if he started out at 3.30, he should have been there at 3.37.
When Nichols was found, he should have been way up Hanbury Street.

Just like you say, we should observe that timings were often unreliable, but what we have is what we have!

Since he arrived so closely after the murder, how off could he really be?

Way off, DRoy. But you probably make a fair point when you say that Llewellyn arrived shortly after the murder. Myself, I think the best pointer we have is the fact that both Neil and Mizen claimed that the blood was running from Nicholsīs throat as they saw her.
Assume that Nichols was slain ten minutes before Lechmere and Paul "found" her. Then add to that the perhaps three or four minutes it would have taken for Neil to come upon her, thats thirteen, fourteen minutes. Then add the perhaps three or four minutes that it took for Mizen to arrive back in Buckīs Row, thatīs sixteen, eighteen minutes.
Would the blood still be flowing from Nichols neck at that stage? Perhaps close to twenty minutes after she was cut?
Now, do the same experiment with Lechmere being the killer, and put the cutting of the neck at 3.43, justabout. Then add the time until Paul arrived at 3.45, and add the further eight minutes, and we arrive at ten minutes. Now thatīs a much more credible time for her to still be bleeding.

I won't go on because this is a thread on whether he'd run. But I can summarize and say yes in my opinion anyone guilty of anything could act and say the exact same things Lech did. I just threw out affair but it could be a lot of things he was guilty of and he was saving his ass by saying and acting the way he did.

Iīm not sure where you are coming from in this case. What things would you be referring to as possible explanations for his acting the way he did?
At the end of the day, even if there WAS something else that he was guilty of, we have no knowledge of any such thing. But we DO know that there was a freshly killed woman by his side as Paul arrived and came upon him.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

Iīd like to start a new thread here about the issue of whether Charles Lechmere would have run away from Buckīs Row when he heard Paul approaching, if he was the killer.
It seems to be one of the ideas some people have a hard time abandoning.

I have no problem abandoning the idea that Cross - if he killed Nichols - would have run. That's far from a certainty. Individuals make decisions based upon many things. He may have rehearsed scenarios in his mind: "If I'm distrurbed, I'll bluff my way out...." etc. My issue with Cross is that we are forced to apply myriad "if-then" statements in order to view him as JtR.

If he was a psychopath then........

If he left his house at this time and not that time then......

If he didn't hear Paul's approach then.........

If he he drove a cart for Pickfords, then he would have been near Hanbury Street and then.......

If most people knew him as Lechmere and he gave his name as Cross then....

And, yes! We can play this game with ALL 'suspects'. Which is why I - and many others - believe that Jack the Ripper was man unknown to anyone. His name likely appears nowhere in the case file. He wasn't a witness or a suspect. He wasn't a famous painter or author. He didn't work for Pickford's and he didn't write any letters to the police.

I want to clarify this: I love the idea of Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. It's a great story, his name under our noses for 100 years. The man who discovered the body of the first (?) victim, the first witness associted with the Whitechapel murders WAS Jack himself! It's fantastic. Who would not be attracted to the idea. It would make a great book. I'd see that movie!

Alas, I cannot buy it. I'd like to. I just can't. To me, he's Sickert redux (without the paintbrush and famous crime novelist).

[Lechmere]

Patrick
I hope you do at least buy the book and buy a ticket to see the movie.

[Scott Nelson]

I've given up reading. When is the movie coming out?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

I have no problem abandoning the idea that Cross - if he killed Nichols - would have run. That's far from a certainty.

Great! Progress! And of course completely correct.

My issue with Cross is that we are forced to apply myriad "if-then" statements in order to view him as JtR.

Then thatīs your issue with each and every one of the suspects. And thatīs fine.

And, yes! We can play this game with ALL 'suspects'.

Mmm. But there is only one suspect with whom we can play the "He had reason to pass all the murder sites" game.

And there is only one suspect with whom we can play the "And not even that, he had reason to pass all the murder sites at the relevant times" game.

And with how many suspects can you play the "He gave the police another name than his own" game?

With how many suspects can you play the "The PC he spoke to told a radically different story about what was said" game?

Lechmere is not and will never be just a suspect of ifs. There is much substance to it - much!

I want to clarify this: I love the idea of Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. It's a great story, his name under our noses for 100 years. The man who discovered the body of the first (?) victim, the first witness associted with the Whitechapel murders WAS Jack himself! It's fantastic. Who would not be attracted to the idea. It would make a great book. I'd see that movie!

Thatīs a good idea, Patrick!

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Hi DRoy!

Hey Fish!

I realize that you are asking Lechmere these questions, but I will butt in and give my meaning if you donīt much mind.

I thought you two were the same person

Not many enough to produce a single person on the streets Lechmere walked from Doveton Street to Buckīs Row. Not one! That would have represented roughly a seven minute trek, and Lechmere said afterwards that he did not see a single person until Paul ran into him.

So now he's telling the truth? How are you able to decifer which ones are truth and which ones are lies? Regardless, just because he didn't see someone doesn't mean he and Paul were the only ones on the street. Plus, how many other streets are there near Buck's Row that any other person could have came from and went to?

Lechmere said - depending on what source you use - that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30.
Just like you say, we should observe that timings were often unreliable, but what we have is what we have!

A liar who sometimes tell the truth? If that's our timing evidence then what we have is not much.

Way off, DRoy. But you probably make a fair point when you say that Llewellyn arrived shortly after the murder.

Thanks Fish! How much did that hurt to admit?

Myself, I think the best pointer we have is the fact that both Neil and Mizen claimed that the blood was running from Nicholsīs throat as they saw her.
Assume that Nichols was slain ten minutes before Lechmere and Paul "found" her. Then add to that the perhaps three or four minutes it would have taken for Neil to come upon her, thats thirteen, fourteen minutes. Then add the perhaps three or four minutes that it took for Mizen to arrive back in Buckīs Row, thatīs sixteen, eighteen minutes.
Would the blood still be flowing from Nichols neck at that stage? Perhaps close to twenty minutes after she was cut?
Now, do the same experiment with Lechmere being the killer, and put the cutting of the neck at 3.43, justabout. Then add the time until Paul arrived at 3.45, and add the further eight minutes, and we arrive at ten minutes. Now thatīs a much more credible time for her to still be bleeding.

Why ten minutes before Lech and Paul found her? The rest of your times are guesses. I'm not trying to be picky or cut down your timing theory on purpose but you could be off one minute for each of those events which lessens the time the neck was bleeding. Everyone was estimating so timing could go either way.

Iīm not sure where you are coming from in this case. What things would you be referring to as possible explanations for his acting the way he did?
At the end of the day, even if there WAS something else that he was guilty of, we have no knowledge of any such thing. But we DO know that there was a freshly killed woman by his side as Paul arrived and came upon him.

I'm just saying there is an explanation for everything he said and did if it was made up to save his bacon from getting caught doing anything (yes I think it fair to include murder). Any crime at all, an affair, etc. We have no knowledge he was a killer just like we have no knowledge of him doing anything else wrong.

Now back to the thread? I believe he would have ran if he was guilty of murder.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy: Hey Fish!

So now he's telling the truth? How are you able to decifer which ones are truth and which ones are lies? Regardless, just because he didn't see someone doesn't mean he and Paul were the only ones on the street. Plus, how many other streets are there near Buck's Row that any other person could have came from and went to?

He could have lied about it - and I think he may well have done, allowing himself more time to kill. But what we have is what we must go by.
The same goes for the emptyness of the streets - Lechmereīs trek will give a rough picture.

A liar who sometimes tell the truth? If that's our timing evidence then what we have is not much.

See the above.

Thanks Fish! How much did that hurt to admit?

Not at all. Why would it?

Why ten minutes before Lech and Paul found her? The rest of your times are guesses. I'm not trying to be picky or cut down your timing theory on purpose but you could be off one minute for each of those events which lessens the time the neck was bleeding. Everyone was estimating so timing could go either way.

Because we must exemplify with something. If it was more or less will have an influence, but the gist of the matter is that if Mizen was correct, then the murder would have taken place close in time to when Paul came into the street.

I'm just saying there is an explanation for everything he said and did if it was made up to save his bacon from getting caught doing anything (yes I think it fair to include murder). Any crime at all, an affair, etc. We have no knowledge he was a killer just like we have no knowledge of him doing anything else wrong.

So how do you look upon the correlation between his working trek and the murder spots, plus the timings? How does that pan out statistically for you? And I also think that when we need to look for alternative explanations to a dozen anomalies, we may need to understand that we may be going a murderers errands.

Now back to the thread? I believe he would have ran if he was guilty of murder.

I know. Have you noticed that many donīt agree?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Fish,

He could have lied about it - and I think he may well have done, allowing himself more time to kill. But what we have is what we must go by.
The same goes for the emptyness of the streets - Lechmereīs trek will give a rough picture.

If what we have is what we must go by then can't the same be said by his testimony at the inquest?

So how do you look upon the correlation between his working trek and the murder spots, plus the timings? How does that pan out statistically for you? And I also think that when we need to look for alternative explanations to a dozen anomalies, we may need to understand that we may be going a murderers errands.

You'd have to allow for him to change his route to work to arrive at the murder sites. If that's the case, anybody in the vicinity whether walking to work, walking home from work, or just out for a stroll could have arrived at the sites. The same could be said for the timing. Example: Paul, we know he was out and about near by at the same time.

I know. Have you noticed that many donīt agree?

I did notice, but that doesn't have any bearing on my opinion. If JTR was a psychopath, if he was a planner, if Lech could think that fast on his feet, if he could be that cunning, if, if, if. I'm not saying it is impossible he would stay if he was the killer, however, I believe it less likely than running.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

If what we have is what we must go by then can't the same be said by his testimony at the inquest?

If that was to be applied universally, we would never catch a lying criminal, DRoy.
I understand your thoughts here, but they are really not very productive; "If we are to believe him about the time he said he went to job, then we must also believe him when he says he just found the woman, and had nothing to do with her demise", sort of.

Any theory about guilt attaching to a suspect will always hinge on suppositions and conjecture to a smaller or lesser degree, up til the moment there is solid proof. Personally, I donīt think that should stop us from pursuing our suspicions against different suspects, as long as there is nothing to definitely disprove that they are viable. In that sense, I think it is a bit disingenious to suggest that if we work from a time given by a suspect, we must accordingly accept all that suspect has said.

Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30. That allows for time to kill Nichols either way we cut it. These timings are also rather uncontroversial since they represent viable timings for him to have left his home, headed for Broad Street. We either work from them, or we invent other times of our own that have no anchoring in reality whatsoever.

You'd have to allow for him to change his route to work to arrive at the murder sites. If that's the case, anybody in the vicinity whether walking to work, walking home from work, or just out for a stroll could have arrived at the sites. The same could be said for the timing. Example: Paul, we know he was out and about near by at the same time.

Anybody, DRoy? At ALL the sites?

You take Paul as an example. Letīs go with that! Robert Paul lived in Foster Street and worked at Corbettīs Court.
Would using Buckīs Row be a logical thoroughfare for him to his job? Yes, it would.
Would using Hanbury Street be a logical thoroughfare for him to his job? Yes, it would.
Would using Berner Street be a logical thoroughfare for him to his job? No, it would not. He would never use it to get to work. Do we have any other reason for him to have gone to Berner Street on a Saturday night? No, we donīt.
Would using Mitre Square be a logical thoroughfare for him to his job? No, it would not. He would never use it to get to work. Do we have any other reason for him to have gone to Mitre Square on a Saturday night? No, we donīt.
Would using Dorset Street be a logical thoroughfare for him to his job? No, it would not. He would never use it to get to work.
Would using George Yard be a logical thoroughfare for him to his job? No, it would not. He would never use it to get to work.

So as you can see, DRoy, Paul is totally disqualified by the pattern of murder sites. He answers to two of them, and thatīs that.
To Lechmere, the choice between Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street would be an open one - both would take him to Broad Street in roughly the same time. Paul would not have any reason at all to use Old Montague Street.
To Lechmere, Dorset Street would provide a short cut along the Hanbury Street trek to Broad Street. Paul would not have any reason at all to go to Dorset Street, since that would take him away from Corbetts Court.

I would also suggest that very few men walked through Buckīs Row on the given hours of about, say, 3.30 to 4 AM. A handful at the very most. Not one person was seen entering or leaving the street but for the carmen that night.

Letīs say, for theories sake, that there are five men to choose from. Then imagine how big the chance is that any other of these men, apart from Lechmere, would have reason to walk past not only Buckīs Row (to which they could have come from any direction, afterwards heading in any other direction), but also George Yard, Hanbury Street, Dorset Street, Berner Street and Mitre Square.
This alone is a very heavy burden for Lechmere in the suspect role, make no mistake about it. When you then add the pointers about his nameswap and his lying his way past Mizen, together with all the other anomalies, then you have to get pretty busy NOT to suspect him.

But then again, thatīs what people do - they go out of their way to try and clear him from all of this...

I did notice, but that doesn't have any bearing on my opinion.

It shouldnīt have either, DRoy. If you feel convinced that this is the better bid, then why would you not cling on to it?
The important thing is to nevertheless realize that others DO disagree, and that points very much to a split decision and a clear possibility that both options may apply. If everybody had said "he would have run", you would have a case applying to Lechmere - as it stands you only have a case of having convinced yourself, right?

If JTR was a psychopath, if he was a planner, if Lech could think that fast on his feet, if he could be that cunning, if, if, if. I'm not saying it is impossible he would stay if he was the killer, however, I believe it less likely than running.

I disagree, as you know. Once again, have a look at Dahmer! And there are numerous other examples of psychopaths that have been unable to resist playing with fire, normally since they have felt so superior that they never for a moment thought they were at risk.
And once again, if Lechmere was the killer, then there can be very little doubt that he was a psychopath. Itīs only when we accept this that the theory works. If we choose not to accept it, THEN the better guess would be that he would have run.

The best,
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Lechmere,

I think Cross/Lechmere and Paul are definitely worth close examination because of their regular proximity to Mrs Nichols and Mrs Chapman murder sites.

But, the more I read the less I'm convinced that there was anything odd or unusual about the pair.


"Lechmere says that he did not hear Paul until he was forty (or thirty, the sources differ) yards away."

I'm not familiar with that statement, could you cite where Cross/Lechmere claimed not to have heard Paul?
It *is* an inference that could be drawn, but I haven't come across where he specifically claimed that.

"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."

Cross/Lechmere gives no time for finding the body, so we don't know what his time frame was. Paul is useless as he claimed seeing Cross/Lechmere at the same time as PC Neil was supposed to have discovered the body and, according to some newspapers, Mizen claimed to have never met them.


"... Llewellyn judged the time of death as being almost exactly the time that Paul met Lechmere."

Victorian medical science was incapable of pinning an exact T.O.D. in a case like this to anything under one hour.


"... there is evidence to suggest the culprit was disturbed and no one else was seen to enter of leave Bucks Row."

Ditto Deimshits.


"... Lechmere was found by the body before he had raised the alarm."

Who else but Paul was he going to raise the alarm to?


"... the way he approached Paul was unusual."

In your opinion, which is fair enough, but not in mine or, far more importantly, in the opinion of the police or the coroner.


"... he refused Paul’s suggestion to lift up the body- an action which would have made the neck wound obvious."

Or alternatively he did the right thing and prevented Paul disturbing the crime scene.
Cross/Lechmere had already said he thought she was dead, so seeing blood would only confirm what he had already stated, no big deal.


"... he disputed the nature of the conversation he had with the policeman he met after leaving the crime scene."

As Paul confirmed Cross/Lechmere's version, Mizen is the one to question here. Particularly as, according to the newspapers prior to the inquest, Mizen denied seeing anyone at all.


"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."

Or far more likely, Cross/Lechmere took the best route available to him.
I haven't timed the distance, but Hanbury/Spital/Primrose/Finsbury looks on the map pretty similar to the Old Montague Street route.
Timing aside, the Hanbury Street route had one massive advantage over the Montague route, safety.
Looking at Booth's Poverty map, if Cross/Lechere went down Montague Street he would have to pass through the most dangerous streets in the neighborhood.
I think Cross/Lechmere knew exactly which way was best.


"He gave a name to the authorities that was at variance with the name he gave on around 100 other occasions during his life."

Although I've already written a possible reason for this, I agree it is unusual.

For me, the theories about Lechmere tend to veer too much to the exotic rather than the, more likely, mundane.

[Ben]

Let's not have this business about "work routes" again.

There is nothing to indicate that Cross had any idea he was taking a "longer route than necessary". He was new to Doveton Terrace, and unless he was equipped with detailed maps and a stop watch, probably used Hanbury Street on a regular basis becausae it was quick, it went in the right direction, and it avoided the dodgier roads. As Drstrange points out, there was hardly any difference in timing between the Hanbury Street and Montague Street routes, and in fact, one of the shortest possible routes involved heading along Hanbury Street and then South onto Wilkes Street.

I'm afraid there is no "link" to other murder sites. Mitre Square and George's Yard are both out of that equation in the absence of any evidence that Cross ever took, or even knew about, the Montague Street route to work.

The best that can be said it that Cross walked through the general area in which the murders were committed, and unfortunately, that counts for very little when there were thousands of men - several of whom are suspects we discuss today - who actually lived IN that area. From the point of view of criminological experience, a person living in the murder region ought to be regarded with a lot more suspicion than a person who had occasion to walk through it.

Where is the evidence of other serial murderers killing and disposing of their victims on their way to work?

Regards,
Ben