So would he have run?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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,

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

[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.

[DVV]

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

[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]

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 !

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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