So would he have run?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

It doesn't matter if he lived there for 60 years. If he had no reason to compare the distances between Doveton Avenue and his place of work at Pickfords, there was no reason for him to have any knowledge as to which was ever so slightly longer, and even if he did, he may well have settled on Hanbury Street because he knew it was quick, direct, and safer than the Montague Street alternative. He was not a "taxi driver", he had no reason to walk those particular streets until he lived there, and he didn't have sat-nav or a radio that would inform him "there will be queues in some areas, other times large industries will open their doors, congesting streets and so on".

But he WAS an equivalent of a taxi driver. He would have all the streets and distances in his head. It was a working tool of his. Other suggestions are unviable.

There is no evidence that he explored, or ever felt the need to explore, alternatives routes to work beyond simple, straightforward, does-the-job Hanbury Street which he doubtless decided upon soon after arriving in Doveton Crescent. He was undoubtedly able to figure out that Old Montague Street headed in more or less the right direction, but may have been put off by its very bad reputation and the various back alleys he had to faff about with after Wentworth Street (which I'm quite sure some of these modern-day route-timers didn't take into account).

That is equivalent to saying that carmen (and todays taxi drivers) not necessaily feel the need to explore alternative routes. It does not pan out at all.

Let's put it another way: do we have any evidence that Cross ever set foot on Old Montague Street to get to work?

No.

Good, onwards then...

It does not work that way, Iīm afraid. There is every reason to accept that he would have used the shortest thoroughfare to his job, since that is what people normally do for time-saving reasons.
Plus, as I said, Old Montague Street is Tabram territory, whereas the canonicals are not Old Montague Street material.

Very circular, Fisherman.

No, itīs not, actually.

Whoever the ripper was, he made it his business to be "up and about at 3.30 in the morning", and if he lived in the general vicinity of the crimes, and wasn't due at work in the next few minutes, he'd belong with the vast majority of serial offenders whose crime/disposal locations are all within easy walking distance of each other.

Mmm - but you suggested a potential group of THOUSANDS of men, and I think we can very safely say that such a group was NOT on the streets at 3.30. In the Buckīs Row vicinity, not a single one of this huge group of men was to be found.

There is nothing circular in pointing out that the TRUE group of possible perpetrators was the group of men that WAS up and about at 3.30 - and that group was petite, to say the least.

If he was someone like Cross, on the other hand, he'd be a "very rare" commuter type of offender who did what nobody else has ever done and kill on the way to work. Now, don't get me wrong, "kan inte uteslutas" and all that, but if we're speaking of statistical likelihoods, the evidence points very mch away from Cross.

And Bundy could not have done it, eh? Statistics are against it.

Now, take some time and explain to us all why a serial killer with enough time on his hands would not kill on his working trek! What exact parameter would stop it automatically?

If my auntie had bollocks, her groin area would represent a testicular zone. Ifs and buts. The fact remains that a serial killer's comfort zone has rarely, if ever, been his route to work, so for Lechmere to be the killer, he would have to fly in the face of criminological precedent.

The place you live and the place you work and the road to work is normally described as your comfort zone. It translates into "an area where you are at ease and know the surroundings".
Thatīs how much it would "fly in the face of criminological precedent".

With respect, Ben the argument as such is outright stupid.

If the murder locations surrounded Doveton Alley, he would be more persuasive as a suspect.

No, he would not. He had very little experience of that area, whereas he had decades of experience of for example the Pinchin Street/James Street/Berner Street area. That area would be a comfort zone to him, whereas Doveton Street would not. I trust you can see the relevance: well-known area = comfort zone, unknown area = no comfort zone.

That's another problem. I don't believe that the "window of time" in which Chapman was "open" to Cross. He would have been due at work well before her likely time of death (and her unlikely one, for that matter).

Answer: Phillips. Or an errand later in the day. No big deal. No small deal, even. No deal at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

We have a lot more reason to suppose that Charles Lechmere will have walked down Old Montague Street than any other suspect. Given that it was his shortest route to work.
By comparison we have absolutely nothing to go on for Druitt, Tumblety, Kosminsky, Le Grand, Hutchinson, Fleming, Barnett, Bury.... and so on.
I can live with that.

Charles Lechmere had a ready reason to be out on the streets at the hours most of the murders took place.
Can we say the same for Druitt, Tumblety, Kosminsky, Le Grand, Hutchinson, Fleming, Barnett, Bury.... and so on. No.
I would rather work on a suspect who had cause to be out and about than one who didn't - particularly one who would not be able to get admission to his lodgings in the small hours of the morning..

[Ben]

I'm very pleased to see that you're talking to me again, Fisherman.

Apart from that, I think it is a very strange thing to imply that a carman with twenty years plus of experience and having grown up in close proximity to these streets would represent a man where no indications of any geographical knowledge are about.

It doesn't matter if he lived there for 60 years. If he had no reason to compare the distances between Doveton Avenue and his place of work at Pickfords, there was no reason for him to have any knowledge as to which was ever so slightly longer, and even if he did, he may well have settled on Hanbury Street because he knew it was quick, direct, and safer than the Montague Street alternative. He was not a "taxi driver", he had no reason to walk those particular streets until he lived there, and he didn't have sat-nav or a radio that would inform him "there will be queues in some areas, other times large industries will open their doors, congesting streets and so on".

In my book, that is qualified nonsense.

There is no evidence that he explored, or ever felt the need to explore, alternatives routes to work beyond simple, straightforward, does-the-job Hanbury Street which he doubtless decided upon soon after arriving in Doveton Crescent. He was undoubtedly able to figure out that Old Montague Street headed in more or less the right direction, but may have been put off by its very bad reputation and the various back alleys he had to faff about with after Wentworth Street (which I'm quite sure some of these modern-day route-timers didn't take into account).

Let's put it another way: do we have any evidence that Cross ever set foot on Old Montague Street to get to work?

No.

Good, onwards then...

... and who were all up and about at 3.30 in the morning, when the streets were all but empty, as professed by Lechmere himself.

Very circular, Fisherman.

Whoever the ripper was, he made it his business to be "up and about at 3.30 in the morning", and if he lived in the general vicinity of the crimes, and wasn't due at work in the next few minutes, he'd belong with the vast majority of serial offenders whose crime/disposal locations are all within easy walking distance of each other. If he was someone like Cross, on the other hand, he'd be a "very rare" commuter type of offender who did what nobody else has ever done and kill on the way to work. Now, don't get me wrong, "kan inte uteslutas" and all that, but if we're speaking of statistical likelihoods, the evidence points very mch away from Cross.

Not in this case, though. The area Lechmere killed in would have represented a comfort zone to him.

If my auntie had bollocks, her groin area would represent a testicular zone. Ifs and buts. The fact remains that a serial killer's comfort zone has rarely, if ever, been his route to work, so for Lechmere to be the killer, he would have to fly in the face of criminological precedent. If the murder locations surrounded Doveton Alley, he would be more persuasive as a suspect.

What we need is the understanding that serialists will kill in the windows of time that are open to them.

That's another problem. I don't believe that the "window of time" in which Chapman was "open" to Cross. He would have been due at work well before her likely time of death (and her unlikely one, for that matter).

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

There is nothing to indicate that Cross had any idea he was taking a "longer route than necessary". He was new to Doveton Terrace ...

Doveton Street, Ben!
Apart from that, I think it is a very strange thing to imply that a carman with twenty years plus of experience and having grown up in close proximity to these streets would represent a man where no indications of any geographical knowledge are about.
Have you ever noticed how the taxi drivers of for example London will know exactly which route to use at any given time of the day? Sometimes there will be queues in some areas, other times large industries will open their doors, congesting streets and so on. And these guys know all of this like the palm of their hand. Lechmere would have been no different after twenty years experience.

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.

In my book, that is qualified nonsense. Not that we do not know for sure that he ever used old Montague Street for getting to his work, but the suggestion that he would not know it existed, Ben ... ouch! You can do better than that. Or canīt you?

At the end of the day, however, only Tabram was slain along the Old Montague route, and she is a victim that may or may not have been Jacks. The canonical ones are all in the right spots, for reason explained numerous times.
Myself, I am rather convinced that Tabram WAS a Ripper victim. But I am a lot less convinced of that, than I am that Charles Lechmere would have known of Old Montague Streetīs existence.
Really, Ben...!

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.

... and who were all up and about at 3.30 in the morning, when the streets were all but empty, as professed by Lechmere himself. Geez, Ben!

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.

Not in this case, though. The area Lechmere killed in would have represented a comfort zone to him. Actually perhaps a lot more so than the area surrounding Doveton Street.
As you yourself wisely pointed out, he was new to that area.

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

Who needs it? What we need is the understanding that serialists will kill in the windows of time that are open to them. Nothing more.

All murder series have traits that are unique to them and them only. There is always something we can pick and say: Where are other examples of this? And then we can try to make people belive that we have made a good point. Some will buy it, some not.

Think about Bundy - where are the other examples of killers who have feigned a handicap to lure victims into a VW?

I guess Bundy never did it after all ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Dr Strange

I quite agree there is nothing unusual about the pair, but Lechmere alone? That’s another matter.
Allow me to address the issues you raised.

Did Lechmere hear Paul?
Daily Telegraph’s report of his inquest testimony….
‘He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.’To be honest whether he heard or whether he saw is immaterial for the case. Paul in his newspaper interview says he saw Lechmere rather than heard him.

Lechmere says he left home at 3.30 or 3.20 (depending on which report you choose) and we know fairly accurately how long it would have taken him to walk the short distance to Bucks Row. We know the time Paul says he left home and he says he knew he was late for work – indeed as Lechmere also claimed. If they both knew they were late for work then presumably they had clocks. In any case if we put Lechmere’s timings to Pauls’ timings they do not add up.
You can claim their clocks were out. All I will say is that given the timings we have – and that is all we have to go on – there is a discrepancy. If here was no discrepancy the case would be weaker. But there is a discrepancy and you can’t do better than that!

As for time of death you know better than Llewellyn?
He said the body had been dead less than half an hour which puts it almost exactly at the time Lechmere was with the body.
Again you can’t do better than that!

If you think the scenario was similar to Dimschutz’s discovery of Stride then think again. Stride was seen by various people on the street and numerous people were seen on the street also.
The nature of Dimschultz’s discovery of Stride was quite different to the discovery of Nichols. Dimschutz raised the alarm in the building adjacent – did Lechmere?

There was no notion in 1888 about not disturbing crime scenes. According to Lechmere’s testimony he was unsure whether it was a crime scene:
"She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
(Daily Telegraph version)

As for the Mizen conversation, Paul initially claimed to have done all the talking. In his inquest testimony he didn’t really go into any details. He is a poor witness to rely on to corroborate Lechmere’s version of that conversation.
The significant point here is that after leaving the body and bumping into Mizen, Mizen claimed Lechmere said one thing, while Lechmere claimed he said something else altogether. Just brushing this aside is in my opinion slightly ridiculous.

The Old Montague Street route is most definitely the shortest – it has been measured. When I first looked at this case I knew immediately which was the shortest route based on my own knowledge of the streets and I have never been a professional driver (as Lechmere was essentially) nor have I lived in that specific area (near by but not so I would have to walk that route).
The Hanbury Street route took him down Dorset Street or one street away. Whatever route he took would have taken him by some bad areas according to Booth’s map.

There is nothing exotic about Lechmere as a suspect – he is the pretty much the most mundane, ordinary and inconspicuous suspect there is.

[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

[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.

[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

[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: 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]

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]

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

[Scott Nelson]

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

[Lechmere]

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

[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).