Lechmere The Psychopath

[Abby Normal]

Personally I've always felt that the same criteria was likely for all the murders which were all committed in the early hours of the morning. Surely this would speak against a man with an early morning, fairly menial job. He wouldn't have risked being late (perhaps having to lie low or spend more time than expected cleaning himself up) because he would probably have ended up being sacked and the workhouse would have loomed large. Also the other reasons that I mentioned in an earlier post would apply.
For me this would hint toward Jack being unemployed or otherwise have the kind of job, working alone, that gave him freedom of movement. I'm not proposing him for a single second but someone 'like' Diemschutz for eg. Off to some market in the early hours. Or coming back home in the early hours, 'what a day I've had love!'
I know this isn't exactly a Sherlock Holmes deduction (actually it's a Herlock Sholmes one) but, for me, it ways heavily against Lechmere (amongst other things). We cannot rule him out. But then again there aren't many suspects that we can conclusively rule out. We can only go on likelihood (and we'll still disagree with each other).
For me personally, with Lechmere, if you take away proximity, there's nothing left.

Regards
Herlock

Yup. These types of serial killers usually like to have time to do there thing and plenty of time after to do there thing with there trophies.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish and El
yes it seems he was working of course. But if records were to show he was off...well of course that's a huge lie as obviously he was out looking for victims(probably) and not on his way to work.

Is there anything on record that the police checked with Pickfords on his story?


Piere go away..

Thank you!

No, there is no evidence telling us that the police checked with Pickfords.

[Fisherman]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread surely it's unlikely that the killer would kill on his way to work.

a) he'd risk being late at a time when work was hard to come by and employers could dismiss employees without fear of tribunal. Also there would be people lining up to take his place.
b) a hurried kill on the way to work would increase the possibility of turning up for work with blood spots that he hadn't noticed. A colleague sees the blood, hears of the murder on Cross's route to work and .......

If, for whatever reason, he wasn't at work that day then the above risks would vanish.

Regards
Herlock

And if, for whatever reason, he was not at work on the days the victims were killed, I´d say that would make for a pretty risky situation too, wouldn´t you say?

You see, the number one thing we need to accept when dealing with a serial killer is that he will take risks. Killing involves risks, no matter how and where you do it. Serialists are people who accept putting themselves at risk, therefore.

Of course, you can try and minimize risk, and many serialists will do that. But others will be pretty brazen.

If we take a look at Lechmere and ask ourselves "when would he kill to minimize risk?", what do we get? He was a family man, and he was a working man, so he would not have had many opportunities left to kill. In the evenings, he was expected home, and he would have raised suspicion if he did not arrive. There is also the fact that it would be daylight and people would be on the streets in numbers.

So he would have to opt for one of two periods:

1. The early morning hours, when it was still dark, or...
2. ...the late night hours.

If he regularly went out onto the streets at, say, 10 PM, returning home an hour or two later, he would still be left with people being around in scores, and he would need an explanation for why he went out at that time - he was due at work the fewest of hours afterwards, and he would have needed his sleep.

But if he chose the early morning hours, he would gain a number of advantages.
He would have a reason to be on the streets.
The streets would have been largely deserted, only leaving the prostitutes and the night crawlers.
He would arguably have been able to leave some time before he actually needed to leave, if his family was still asleep.

I don´t think that he left at 3.20 on mornings when he was looking for prey. I think he left well before that time. And I think he saw to it that he was in place at work when he was expected there, generally speaking.

He was a also a man who had worked at Pickfords for 20 years, so he may have been a very trusted employee, perhaps being the first person to arrive at his shift, the one who opened up the shop, so to speak - if so, there may have been nobody at all to monitor him when he arrived.

That leaves us with the problem of blood specks - if they were there.
He was a carman, quite possibly working with meat from time to time. He would have been grimy to an extent, and he would be wearing dark clothing. Put a small speck of blood on a black jacket and see what happens, how easy it is to notice.
His family was deeply engaged in the cat´s meat business. We don´t know when this started out, but it cannot be excluded that it was in swing in 1888 to a smaller or lesser degree. Lechmere´s working comrades may have been well aware that he helped out with it, and they may have been accustomed to how he was the one of them who was most likely to have blood specks on his person.

I really don´t see how killing before work (maybe we should use that expression instead of "en route to work"?) should pose any problem at all - least of all when it is the one period that offers itself up as the more likely and clever opportunity.

And if Lechmere really DID work on the murder days, then that would serve him much better as part of a cloak of innocence than staying away on the murder days would have. THAT would have posed a real risk, and it would have cemented any suspicion the police may have entertained against him, if that should ever happen.

The man traversed the killing fields at the hours when the murders where carried out. That is infinitely more interesting. He used an alias that he never otherwise used with any authorities, as far as we know. That is infinitely more interesting. He was said to have told Mizen that another PC already had the errand in hand. That is infinitely more interesting. Mizen does not acknowledge that he was told about any severity of the errand at all. That is infinitely more interesting. The body was covered up, hiding the wounds. That is infinitely more interesting.

Saying "it would not have been him, he was on his way to work and he would have been way too worried about loosing his work to be able to kill" is not analytically helpful. Are we to reason that a serial killer, willing to take the ultimate risk of killing another person out in the open street and tear her entrails out, would prioritize hanging on to his work? I don´t see that happening other than as part of an overall concealment act involving a steady job and a family - the very concealment act that the prolific profiler of the behavioral unit of the FBI, Robert Ressler, claimed was the most typical identity a serial killer would choose.
To him, Lechmere would not have been an anomaly, but instead an example of what Ressler said was the most accurate description of a serialist: a man in his late thirties, with a steady employment and a family.

[John G]

And if, for whatever reason, he was not at work on the days the victims were killed, I´d say that would make for a pretty risky situation too, wouldn´t you say?

You see, the number one thing we need to accept when dealing with a serial killer is that he will take risks. Killing involves risks, no matter how and where you do it. Serialists are people who accept putting themselves at risk, therefore.

Of course, you can try and minimize risk, and many serialists will do that. But others will be pretty brazen.

If we take a look at Lechmere and ask oursleves "when would he kill to minimize risk?", what do we get? He was a family man, and he was a working man, so he would not have had many opportunitites left to kill. In the evenings, he was expected home, and he would have raised suspicion if he did not arrive. There is also the fact that it would be daylight and people would be on the streets in numbers.

So he would have to opt for one of two periods:

1. The early morning hours, when it was still dark, or...
2. ...the late night hours.

If he regularly went out onto the streets at, say, 10 PM, returning home an hour or two later, he would still be left with people being around in scores, and he would need an explanation for why he went out at that time - he was due at work the fewest of hours afterwards, and he would have needed his sleep.

But if he chose the early morning hours, he would gain a number of advantages.
He would have a reason to be on the streets.
The streets would have been largely deserted, only leaving the prostitutes and the night crawlers.
He would arguably have been able to leave some time before he actually needed to leave, if his family was still asleep.

I don´t think that he left at 3.20 on mornings when he was looking for prey. I think he left well before that time. And I think he saw to it that he was in place at work when he was expected there, generally speaking.

He was a also a man who had worked at Pickfords for 20 years, so he may have been a very trusted employee, perhaps being the first person to arrive at his shift, the one who opened up the shop, so to speak - if so, there may have been nobody at all to monitor him when he arrived.

That leaves us with the problem of blood specks - if they were there.
He was a carman, quite possibly working with meat from time to time. He would have been grimy to an extent, and he would be wearing dark clothing. Put a small speck of blood on a black jacket and see what happens, how easy it is to notice.
His family was deeply engaged in the cat´s meat business. We don´t know when this started out, but it cannot be excluded that it was in swing in 1888 to a smaller or lesser degree. Lechmere´s working comrades may have been well aware that he helped out with it, and they may have been accustomed to how he was the one of them who was most likely to have blood specks on his person.

I really don´t see how killing before work (maybe we should use that expression instead of "en route to work"?) should pose any problem at all - least of all when it is the one period that offers itself up as the more likely and clever opportunity.

And if Lechmere really DID work on the murder days, then that would serve him much better as part of a cloak of innocence than staying away on the murder days would have. THAT would have posed a real risk, and it would have cemented any suspicion the police may have entertained against him, if that should ever happen.

The man traversed the killing fields at the hours when the murders where carried out. That is infinitely more interesting. He used an alias that he never otherwise used with any authorities, as far as we know. That is infinitely more interesting. He was said to have told Mizen that another PC already had the errand in hand. That is infinitely more interesting. Mizen does not acknowledge that he was told about any severity of the errand at all. That is infinitely more interesting. The body was covered up, hiding the wounds. That is infinitely more interesting.

Saying "it would not have been him, he was on his way to work and he would have been way too worried about loosing his work to be able to kill" is not analytically helpful. Are we to reason that a serial killer, willing to take the ultimate risk of killing another person out in the open street and tear her entrails out, would prioritize hanging on to his work? I don´t see that happening other than as part of an overall concealment act involving a steady job and a family - the very concealment act that the prolific profiler of the behavioral unit of the FBI, Robert Ressler, claimed was the most typical identity a serial killer would choose.
To him, Lechmere would not have been an anomaly, but instead an example of what Ressler said was the most accurate description of a serialist: a man in his late thirties, with a steady employment and a family.

In respect of Ressler, if we're discussing statistics 70% of serial killers received extensive head injuries as children and 72.5% experienced substance abuse problems: http://www.statisticbrain.com/serial...-demographics/ Is there any evidence either of those factors applied to Lechmere? And what percentage of serial killers do you think targeted a victim whilst on the way to work?

[Fisherman]

In respect of Ressler, if we're discussing statistics 70% of serial killers received extensive head injuries as children and 72.5% experienced substance abuse problems: http://www.statisticbrain.com/serial...-demographics/ Is there any evidence either of those factors applied to Lechmere? And what percentage of serial killers do you think targeted a victim whilst on the way to work?

We are not discussing statistics, no.

The head injuries/substance abuse matter is impossible to comment on, of course, that should go without saying. There is no evidence either way, and therefore it can not be ruled in OR out.

What percentage of serial killers do I think targetted victims whilst on the way to work?

What a question!

Let me ask you this: If we have a situation, a purely theoretical one, where ten men, all destined to become serial killers, were only offered a possibility to kill in the early morning hours, before they were due at work - how many of them do you think would not become serial killers on account of not accepting and using that option?

Ten? Five? Or none of them?

Personally, I am going for the latter option.

[caz]

He would arguably have been able to leave some time before he actually needed to leave, if his family was still asleep.

I don´t think that he left at 3.20 on mornings when he was looking for prey. I think he left well before that time.

Hi Fishy,

Well that's a bit different from your previous reasoning, that Lechmere had to tell the police the truth about when he left home on the morning of the murder [thereby leaving himself enough time to have done it himself] because if he had lied about it, and claimed it was later [ie too late for him to have met and murdered Nichols before Paul came along], his illiterate wife could have contradicted him and become suspicious.

Now you seem to be agreeing with my original observation, that even if his missus wasn't still asleep when he left for work, she 'arguably' wouldn't have made a note of the exact time, assuming she had the means to do so, nor would she have known how long it should have taken him, or the latest time he could have left in order to get to work on time, if he didn't stop to slaughter a prossy on the way. He would hardly have shared such details with her, would he?

Talking of the means of telling the time, I wonder if Lechmere was on a 'knocking-up' round, like those on Mizen's beat? If he was knocked up at a certain time every morning, how would that impact your killing plans for him? I doubt the couple had a reliable alarm clock with light and snooze features.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pierre]

Hi Fishy,

Well that's a bit different from your previous reasoning, that Lechmere had to tell the police the truth about when he left home on the morning of the murder [thereby leaving himself enough time to have done it himself] because if he had lied about it, and claimed it was later [ie too late for him to have met and murdered Nichols before Paul came along], his illiterate wife could have contradicted him and become suspicious.

Now you seem to be agreeing with my original observation, that even if his missus wasn't still asleep when he left for work, she 'arguably' wouldn't have made a note of the exact time, assuming she had the means to do so, nor would she have known how long it should have taken him, or the latest time he could have left in order to get to work on time, if he didn't stop to slaughter a prossy on the way. He would hardly have shared such details with her, would he?

Talking of the means of telling the time, I wonder if Lechmere was on a 'knocking-up' round, like those on Mizen's beat? If he was knocked up at a certain time every morning, how would that impact your killing plans for him? I doubt the couple had a reliable alarm clock with light and snooze features.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi,

The world of the Lechmere-idea is a world of IF:s.

IF is the fuel of that idea.

Cheers, Pierre

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fishy,

Well that's a bit different from your previous reasoning, that Lechmere had to tell the police the truth about when he left home on the morning of the murder [thereby leaving himself enough time to have done it himself] because if he had lied about it, and claimed it was later [ie too late for him to have met and murdered Nichols before Paul came along], his illiterate wife could have contradicted him and become suspicious.

It would involve risk, yes, and I don´t think he left hours in advance. Enough to provide some learoom timewise, though. End of story.

Now you seem to be agreeing with my original observation, that even if his missus wasn't still asleep when he left for work, she 'arguably' wouldn't have made a note of the exact time, assuming she had the means to do so, nor would she have known how long it should have taken him, or the latest time he could have left in order to get to work on time, if he didn't stop to slaughter a prossy on the way. He would hardly have shared such details with her, would he?

You are a sheer genius, Caz - to think that you knew better all along - impressive!

Talking of the means of telling the time, I wonder if Lechmere was on a 'knocking-up' round, like those on Mizen's beat? If he was knocked up at a certain time every morning, how would that impact your killing plans for him? I doubt the couple had a reliable alarm clock with light and snooze features.

I doubt many things myself, Caz.

[Fisherman]

Hi,

The world of the Lechmere-idea is a world of IF:s.

IF is the fuel of that idea.

Cheers, Pierre

Yes, that is probably what makes it stand out from all other suspect theories where there are no ifs at all...

Try another hobby. Please?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You say that it would 'make for a pretty risky situation,' if Lechmere had been off work that day. It would, I agree, make him possibly free to kill but it would also have given him no legitimate reason to be in Bucks Row at 3.40am. Somewhere that he would have been 6 days a week if he was at work.

Your next point concerns risk; the fact that some killers are 'pretty brazen.' The Ripper was never caught; lucky or cautious? Chapman - in a secluded back yard. Stride - in a dark yard. Eddowes - in the corner of an ill lit Square. And Kelly - in her own room. This was surely a man who mitigated against risk. Why would he kill at a location that he passed at that time every day?

When discussing ideal times for killing you rightly say that if he went out at, say, 10pm and he returned after an hour two (or four!) he would have needed an explaination as to where he'd been. He would have had to allow himself time to a) find a victim (this could take any amount of time, maybe over an hour) b) find the right location for the deed (which could take any amount of time). c) do the deed (which could take varying amounts of time) d) clean up or at least try and check for obvious patches of blood etc. And e) get to work (which could have taken differing amounts of time as he couldn't be sure where he would have found his victim) All this would surely mean that he would have had to allow himself an extra couple of hours, at least. Surely his wife would have wondered why, on at the very least 5 occasions (then add possible extra times when the hunt was unsuccessful) he had gone to work so early. In most menial jobs people 'clock in' the same time every day unless they are doing overtime. Might she not have said 'I don't see any extra cash coming in for all this overtime?'

The fact that he worked for Pickfords for twenty years and so 'may' have been trusted surely adds to the mystery? Why would this hard-working, conscientious
, apparently steady and normal man suddenly become a serial killer?

On the blood spots. Yes they could have been excused by the Cats Meat business. But we don't know that he'd ever gotten blood on him before. What if he hadn't? Wouldn't his workmates have found it slightly suspicious that Lechmere had coincidentally gotten blood on him for the first time on the very day that a woman had been murdered on his route to work? As a witness, getting a bit of blood on him is plausible as he checked for life. But if he hadn't been 'discovered' by Robert Paul, and gone straight to work without mentioning finding a body how much harder would it have been to explain (if he'd never gotten cats blood on him before that is) Also, if he helped out with the cats meat business would he have done it before going to work? Surely he would have 'helped out' at a more convenient time.

He used the name Cross instead of Lechmere. He used a name that he used in everyday life that wasn't legally his real name. If he'd have called himself Fred Smith, that would have been suspicious. If he'd said Cross and then disappeared forever, that would have been suspicious. Using another name can only be considered suspicious would be if a murderer gained some kind of advantage from it. Which he didn't.

He told Mizen that another policeman had things in hand. Isn't it possible that Mizen had criticised him for leaving the body and Cross had replied something like 'look, I need to get to work or I'll lose my job. Besides it's on one of your beats so another copper will be there by now. I sometimes pass him on my way to work.'

We also have to consider the fact that, despite being found with the body, the police appear not to have suspected him. Robert Paul didn't appear to have any suspicions. Maybe it was because Cross appeared genuinely upset? He appeared at the inquest and gave a plausible, believable account of himself. We can't assume that Victorian Police Officers all resembled Inspector Clouseau.

Finally, why did he stop? We know that serial killers don't just get bored and give up. Cross wasn't imprisoned, hospitalised or seriously injured. He didn't have a break down, a debilitating illness and he didn't emigrate. He went on living a normal family life.

We can't eliminate Lechmere/Cross as a suspect but there a very, very few suspects who can be categorically eliminated. We can only judge for ourselves the likelihood based on what we know at the moment. And, at the moment, I can only say that I find him unlikely.

Apologies for such a long post.

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

You say that it would 'make for a pretty risky situation,' if Lechmere had been off work that day. It would, I agree, make him possibly free to kill but it would also have given him no legitimate reason to be in Bucks Row at 3.40am. Somewhere that he would have been 6 days a week if he was at work.

Your next point concerns risk; the fact that some killers are 'pretty brazen.' The Ripper was never caught; lucky or cautious? Chapman - in a secluded back yard. Stride - in a dark yard. Eddowes - in the corner of an ill lit Square. And Kelly - in her own room. This was surely a man who mitigated against risk. Why would he kill at a location that he passed at that time every day?

When discussing ideal times for killing you rightly say that if he went out at, say, 10pm and he returned after an hour two (or four!) he would have needed an explaination as to where he'd been. He would have had to allow himself time to a) find a victim (this could take any amount of time, maybe over an hour) b) find the right location for the deed (which could take any amount of time). c) do the deed (which could take varying amounts of time) d) clean up or at least try and check for obvious patches of blood etc. And e) get to work (which could have taken differing amounts of time as he couldn't be sure where he would have found his victim) All this would surely mean that he would have had to allow himself an extra couple of hours, at least. Surely his wife would have wondered why, on at the very least 5 occasions (then add possible extra times when the hunt was unsuccessful) he had gone to work so early. In most menial jobs people 'clock in' the same time every day unless they are doing overtime. Might she not have said 'I don't see any extra cash coming in for all this overtime?'

The fact that he worked for Pickfords for twenty years and so 'may' have been trusted surely adds to the mystery? Why would this hard-working, conscientious
, apparently steady and normal man suddenly become a serial killer?

On the blood spots. Yes they could have been excused by the Cats Meat business. But we don't know that he'd ever gotten blood on him before. What if he hadn't? Wouldn't his workmates have found it slightly suspicious that Lechmere had coincidentally gotten blood on him for the first time on the very day that a woman had been murdered on his route to work? As a witness, getting a bit of blood on him is plausible as he checked for life. But if he hadn't been 'discovered' by Robert Paul, and gone straight to work without mentioning finding a body how much harder would it have been to explain (if he'd never gotten cats blood on him before that is) Also, if he helped out with the cats meat business would he have done it before going to work? Surely he would have 'helped out' at a more convenient time.

He used the name Cross instead of Lechmere. He used a name that he used in everyday life that wasn't legally his real name. If he'd have called himself Fred Smith, that would have been suspicious. If he'd said Cross and then disappeared forever, that would have been suspicious. Using another name can only be considered suspicious would be if a murderer gained some kind of advantage from it. Which he didn't.

He told Mizen that another policeman had things in hand. Isn't it possible that Mizen had criticised him for leaving the body and Cross had replied something like 'look, I need to get to work or I'll lose my job. Besides it's on one of your beats so another copper will be there by now. I sometimes pass him on my way to work.'

We also have to consider the fact that, despite being found with the body, the police appear not to have suspected him. Robert Paul didn't appear to have any suspicions. Maybe it was because Cross appeared genuinely upset? He appeared at the inquest and gave a plausible, believable account of himself. We can't assume that Victorian Police Officers all resembled Inspector Clouseau.

Finally, why did he stop? We know that serial killers don't just get bored and give up. Cross wasn't imprisoned, hospitalised or seriously injured. He didn't have a break down, a debilitating illness and he didn't emigrate. He went on living a normal family life.

We can't eliminate Lechmere/Cross as a suspect but there a very, very few suspects who can be categorically eliminated. We can only judge for ourselves the likelihood based on what we know at the moment. And, at the moment, I can only say that I find him unlikely.

Apologies for such a long post.

Regards
Herlock

Hi HS

I personally find your post well thought out and very reasonable on many points.
The only issue being we do not know if Lechmere used Cross often but it is fair to hypocise that he may have.

And I don't consider your post long; a post is as long as it needs to be to communicate the ideas in it.
If you look at some of the exchanges between Fishermen and myself you will get a view on LONG LONG posts.

All the best


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

On the blood spots. Yes they could have been excused by the Cats Meat business. But we don't know that he'd ever gotten blood on him before.

I'm not sure that catsmeat would be particularly bloody - as I understand it, the horseflesh was boiled by the slaughterers before it was sold, and often dyed blue to prevent it being sold on for human consumption (rather than for cats).

[Patrick S]

This was surely a man who mitigated against risk. Why would he kill at a location that he passed at that time every day?

Let's explore this point with respect to risk mitigation for a moment. Clearly the killer (or killers) of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly, was concerned with mitigating risk, leaving aside the obvious fact that no one was ever convicted for any of these women's murders. Although, there is inherent and obvious risk involved in committing murder, clearly the killer (or killers) didn't wish to be caught. As the OP points out, the murder sites provided enough cover to allow the killer to murder - and in most cases - mutilate the victim, and to escape unobserved. Choosing a suitable spot allowed the killer(s) to indulge his compulsions, to remain alive, free, and able to continue indulging his compulsions. And that bring us to Cross/Lechmere. Regarding him, let's ask one question: Did he behave like a man who - if he had just killed Nichols - wished to mitigate risk and emerge from the situation in Buck's/Baker's Row and at the Nichols inquest uncaptured, unkilled, and free to continue doing what he was compelled to do?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;417858]

You say that it would 'make for a pretty risky situation,' if Lechmere had been off work that day. It would, I agree, make him possibly free to kill but it would also have given him no legitimate reason to be in Bucks Row at 3.40am. Somewhere that he would have been 6 days a week if he was at work.

Well, well, well. Hi there. Firstly, we do not know what sort of motives Lechmere could have had for being in Buck´s Row, were it not for going to work.

Certainly it was "legitimate" for any man to go to a pub or for a bit of food at any time during the night / early morning if he wished to do so.

He may also have been doing something else without having to be the Whitechapel killer. He may for example have visited a prostitute.

As you can see, these suggestions have the same value as the suggestion that he was a serial killer, since they are all based on "if" and "may have".

Your next point concerns risk; the fact that some killers are 'pretty brazen.' The Ripper was never caught; lucky or cautious? Chapman - in a secluded back yard. Stride - in a dark yard. Eddowes - in the corner of an ill lit Square. And Kelly - in her own room. This was surely a man who mitigated against risk. Why would he kill at a location that he passed at that time every day?

Fisherman would say because Lechmere was "a psychopath". That is also the question in my thread here.

When discussing ideal times for killing you rightly say that if he went out at, say, 10pm and he returned after an hour two (or four!) he would have needed an explaination as to where he'd been. He would have had to allow himself time to a) find a victim (this could take any amount of time, maybe over an hour) b) find the right location for the deed (which could take any amount of time). c) do the deed (which could take varying amounts of time) d) clean up or at least try and check for obvious patches of blood etc. And e) get to work (which could have taken differing amounts of time as he couldn't be sure where he would have found his victim) All this would surely mean that he would have had to allow himself an extra couple of hours, at least. Surely his wife would have wondered why, on at the very least 5 occasions (then add possible extra times when the hunt was unsuccessful) he had gone to work so early. In most menial jobs people 'clock in' the same time every day unless they are doing overtime. Might she not have said 'I don't see any extra cash coming in for all this overtime?'

And maybe she did! But, actually, Nichols was the victim closest to Lechmere´s home. So that is the explanation as to why he found that particular victim. Not that he was the Whitechapel murderer, since there is no evidence for Lechmere having been at any other of the murder sites.

The fact that he worked for Pickfords for twenty years and so 'may' have been trusted surely adds to the mystery? Why would this hard-working, conscientious
, apparently steady and normal man suddenly become a serial killer?

Apparently steady and normal hard-working men do become serial killers. And people are amazed and ask the same question as you do here.

On the blood spots. Yes they could have been excused by the Cats Meat business. But we don't know that he'd ever gotten blood on him before. What if he hadn't? Wouldn't his workmates have found it slightly suspicious that Lechmere had coincidentally gotten blood on him for the first time on the very day that a woman had been murdered on his route to work? As a witness, getting a bit of blood on him is plausible as he checked for life. But if he hadn't been 'discovered' by Robert Paul, and gone straight to work without mentioning finding a body how much harder would it have been to explain (if he'd never gotten cats blood on him before that is) Also, if he helped out with the cats meat business would he have done it before going to work? Surely he would have 'helped out' at a more convenient time.

There were gloves.

He used the name Cross instead of Lechmere. He used a name that he used in everyday life that wasn't legally his real name. If he'd have called himself Fred Smith, that would have been suspicious. If he'd said Cross and then disappeared forever, that would have been suspicious. Using another name can only be considered suspicious would be if a murderer gained some kind of advantage from it. Which he didn't.

And using another name could also be interesting if a witness gained some kind of advantage from it.

He told Mizen that another policeman had things in hand. Isn't it possible that Mizen had criticised him for leaving the body and Cross had replied something like 'look, I need to get to work or I'll lose my job. Besides it's on one of your beats so another copper will be there by now. I sometimes pass him on my way to work.'

People have been trying to understand if Mizen had a motive for saying what he did or if Lechmere had a motive for stating what he did. Usually if they think either one of them had a motive, they also think that the one with a motive was a liar. If they do not do this, they try to explain it with misunderstanding or mishearing.

We also have to consider the fact that, despite being found with the body, the police appear not to have suspected him. Robert Paul didn't appear to have any suspicions. Maybe it was because Cross appeared genuinely upset? He appeared at the inquest and gave a plausible, believable account of himself. We can't assume that Victorian Police Officers all resembled Inspector Clouseau.

An interesting hypothesis since Fisherman tries to give us a story about the cool psychopath Lechmere. New research question here everyone: Was Lechmere upset - and therefore not a psychopath?

Finally, why did he stop? We know that serial killers don't just get bored and give up. Cross wasn't imprisoned, hospitalised or seriously injured. He didn't have a break down, a debilitating illness and he didn't emigrate. He went on living a normal family life.

Yes. If you postulate that a serial killer has stopped, you must have sources explaining it.

We can't eliminate Lechmere/Cross as a suspect but there a very, very few suspects who can be categorically eliminated. We can only judge for ourselves the likelihood based on what we know at the moment. And, at the moment, I can only say that I find him unlikely.

I see no sources where there must be sources. So I see no serial killer. But I see a witness. And for this, there are sources. These sources also give us indications of problems in the past.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

I'm not sure that catsmeat would be particularly bloody - as I understand it, the horseflesh was boiled by the slaughterers before it was sold, and often dyed blue to prevent it being sold on for human consumption (rather than for cats).

Very interesting, Joshua. What are the sources?

Cheers, Pierre