So would he have run?

[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]

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. That´s 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 I´ve 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. It´s 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.

That´s good to hear. Thank you for that! There are holes, and we must use conjecture at times, that´s 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

[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.

I´d 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, let´s!

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. It´s 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, that´s true.

Now, he just murdered this woman, right?

Absolutely. I´m 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, I´m 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.

Didn´t 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

[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 ... There´s enough of them to form a subgroup of it´s 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, that´s 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]

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. That´s the whole point. As I´ve 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. It´s 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 we´re on the money:

He was not phazed by Paul´s 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 Buck´s 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).

That´s good to hear. Thank you for that! There are holes, and we must use conjecture at times, that´s 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, it´s good we have Fleetwood Mac!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

Fleetwood Mac asked if it helped that he agreed with me that the more logical option would be not to run, and asked if it helped.
It does now!
This issue will divide posters, so it is important to press the point that it is no obvious thing that running would have been the better alternative.

The best,
Fisherman

Get a grip, man! Not only would it have been the better alternative, it would have been his natural instinct. There is a reason that Nichols, et al were not killed in broad daylight in the middle of Trafalgar Square. The killer knew the difference between right and wrong. 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?

So let's look at this. He resisted the compulsion to run. Okay. He decides to play it cool, act like he just stumbled across this dead, mutilated woman. 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?" Now, he just murdered this woman, right? It's safe to assume he's armed with a large blade, right? It's just Paul there. In the dark. Alone. He decides not to run. Not to attack Paul. To engage him in conversation and ask him to take a look at the woman for himself. By involving Paul, he's virtually assured that he'll be interviewed by the police. So, he doesn't run. Doesn't attack Paul. Asks him to take a look at the dead woman. And gives his name. Now, we can have that argument that is name was Lechmere. But he gave a name that people knew him by. 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!

[Patrick S]

If Cross was the killer, I don't think that he was taken by surprise with Paul. He had sufficient time to hide the mutilations, his knife, and compose himself. So he had plenty of time to run, which to me seems to have been the far safer alternative. In fact, I can't think of a good reason to stay, other than that Cross was a complete psychopath. Take into consideration that Cross would not have known who exactly was approaching. It could have been a PC for all he knew.

The point was made in another thread that Cross didn't run because we was a psychopath. I know you aren't espousing this is a fact, but you mention it, so I'll tack on a bit.....

So what do we have that indicates that Cross was psychotic? Because he was also known as Lechmere?

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. 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.

[Fisherman]

If Cross was the killer, I don't think that he was taken by surprise with Paul. He had sufficient time to hide the mutilations, his knife, and compose himself. So he had plenty of time to run, which to me seems to have been the far safer alternative. In fact, I can't think of a good reason to stay, other than that Cross was a complete psychopath. Take into consideration that Cross would not have known who exactly was approaching. It could have been a PC for all he knew.

Fleetwood Mac asked if it helped that he agreed with me that the more logical option would be not to run, and asked if it helped.
It does now!
This issue will divide posters, so it is important to press the point that it is no obvious thing that running would have been the better alternative.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I guess my point is , the rumbling of the heavy luggage train in the immediate vicinity may have masked any sounds of footsteps in the very tight time frame from start to finish ..
cheers

moonbegger

From the inquest:

"Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him."

So no disturbing train, Moonbegger - not as much as a bicycle. It was completely silent ... which is why Lechmere would have heard Paul from a long way off.

The best,
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. I believe most people in that situation would immediately react to the sound of footsteps by doing what would come natural being so close to possibly being caught doing something bad.

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. What benefit would that bring him? Why stay the extra time to do all this when he would accomplish what by staying with the body a little while longer?

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.

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).

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

When push comes to shove though, Lechmere has done nothing more than being the first to discover a victim and giving one of his two names, and according to some being in the locality.

... and covered up the wounds in Nichols, and apparently lied to Mizen, both about the severity of the errand and about another PC being in place, and missed out on hearing a man walking forty yards behind him, and matching the timings by the looks of things, and ...

It is interesting how differently we see things sometimes!

If it helps, in the event I was Lechmere and I was Jack The Ripper I would have stayed and bluffed it out on the basis that running away would have been not far off an admission of guilt.

Yes, that´s the exact point I am making, so it helps very much.

I think that this sort of debate adds weight to the notion that there is nothing of any substance on Lechmere.

And I think that Lechmere is the only suspect where there IS substance. Ask any policeman what he would think about the implications. DOn´t ask some of the ex-policemen, though ... !

Lechmere, if Jack the Ripper, and I'll give you one zillion to one odds that he was so.

You´re on!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Fleetwood
The proposition put forward by Fisherman here is solely that it would not have been an automatic and necessary reaction for a guilty Lechmere to run. Other pointers to his guilt are irrelevant for the basis of this discussion.
It is valid to have this ‘ring fenced’ discussion as some have contended that the mere fact that Lechmere did not run is a sure sign of his innocence.
And as for Coles (of whom I personally am dubious about including), he could hardly pull the same stunt twice could he? So in future scenarios (eg also Stride) flight would be the only option)

Barnaby
The whole point is that if he was the killer, Lechmere must have been a complete psychopath.

Ben

Why do you continue to feigned incredulity as to why Paul was investigated (we have good reason to suggest very strongly that he in fact was) and Lechmere wasn’t investigated (we have very good reason to suggest that he in fact wasn’t)?
This issue is ‘dead’ so far as your contention is concerned, at it contracts the obvious implication of what actually happened at the time – no matter how much you don’t like it from the vantage point of your well-worn armchair.
The rest of your nonsense is even more off topic and not worth replying to.

[moonbegger]

For my mind Fish , The Fact that Lilley stated that she heard the Train go by as Polly presumably took her final breath ( Deliberately timed me thinks ) it would point towards CrossMere ( if innocent ) and Paul , who both failed to mention any train , arriving on the scene just after the killer started work ..

It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds.

I guess my point is , the rumbling of the heavy luggage train in the immediate vicinity may have masked any sounds of footsteps in the very tight time frame from start to finish .. the killer may have also relied upon the street light at the bottom of the row and any silhouettes that passed beneath it to warn him of any disturbances .
Which would also tell us that he was very comfortable in knowing that he would not be disturbed from the Board school end of the Row .. Or just Maybe that was Pollys contribution to her own murder ???

cheers

moonbegger

[Fleetwood Mac]

If Cross was the killer, I don't think that he was taken by surprise with Paul. He had sufficient time to hide the mutilations, his knife, and compose himself. So he had plenty of time to run, which to me seems to have been the far safer alternative. In fact, I can't think of a good reason to stay, other than that Cross was a complete psychopath. Take into consideration that Cross would not have known who exactly was approaching. It could have been a PC for all he knew.

That's true, could have been anyone approaching and the Swallow Gardens killer didn't hang around to wait and see. I personally think Coles was a JTR so for me there's some experience to draw upon.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Problem here, Ben, is that we have the experience of human nature. For every killer who has placed himself into the investigation we have a thousand killers who have kept their heads down. And, that is surely undeniable and renders Hutchinson much more likely to have been a two-bob blaggard or someone telling the truth.