Lechmere The Psychopath

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that Abby. Let's see if I can **** that up.

Herlock

I've been asterisked! I'd just like to assure any delicate souls or angry casebook administrators that the blanked out word rhymed with clock and definately not duck.

Regards
Herlock

[GUT]

I've been asterisked! I'd just like to assure any delicate souls or angry casebook administrators that the blanked out word rhymed with clock and definately not duck.

Regards
Herlock

That's one of the banned ones too, can't even quote the Bible here..

"before the **** crows twice"

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll watch my mouth GUT

Regards
Herlock

[Harry D]

Well... when you put it like that, Patrick, the whole Lechmere theory sounds quite preposterous.

[caz]

As anyone here should be well aware of...suspecting someone of something does not then make that person A Suspect. Evidence does. There is nothing within any Lechmere thread that Ive seen that constitutes evidence suggesting any guilt of any kind.

I can't quite believe my eyes. A post of Michael's (formerly known as Perry Mason - hmmm, suspicious, eh?) with which I can actually agree.

I have always said there is no evidence to begin to make a case against this reliable, hard-working family man, and I can't think what he can possibly have done to anyone to make them want to try.

We may well ask what Lechmere would have gained from giving his name as Cross, if he had been the killer.

I would also like to know what there has been to gain from trying to blacken his name in the 21st century with spurious arguments and pretendy evidence and looking jolly silly in the process.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Human beings have an ingrained process that we follow in order to make decisions. When we're children, we're terrible at it. As teenagers, we're not much better. We start to figure things out in our early 20s. By the time we're in our mid-twenties we've got it pretty well locked in. We use it when we drive a car, choose a meal, buy clothing. It goes something like this:

1. Identify the goal
2. Know the available options that will best allow you achieve the goal
3. Understand the risks involved with each option
4. Understand the benefits offered by each option
5. Weigh the risks and benefits associated with each option
6. Try and pick a winner

Now, Cross was around 40 in 1888 and what we KNOW of his life tells us that he made pretty good decisions. He seems to have married the right woman in that they were married 50+ years. He seems to have made good parental choices in that 10 of his 11 kids survived to adulthood and all managed pretty well in life. He seems to have made a sound career choice in that he worked for Pickford's for 20+ years. He seems to have made good financial decisions in that we see that he improved his family's living situation every few years and he managed to save enough money to open a shop as a pensioner and leave his wife a nice inheritance upon his death.

So, let's look at the Nichols murder. Let us assume - fantastical as it may be - that he was Jack the Ripper (the Torso Killer, et al). Let's see how we'd rate his decision making abilities.

We know his goal: to GET AWAY WITH MURDER. A clear, obvious goal, right? So, how did he go about it? Well. He's just killed Nichols. Let's imagine he's cut her throat, and he's in process of mutilating her abdomen. He's fully engaged in that as it's one of the main reasons why he does what he does when he hears a man approaching down Buck's Row. We know that Buck's Row was very dark. What does he do? What decision does he make? He stops mutilating Nichols. Good decision. He steps away from her body. Okay. Still good. He stops....and he waits for that man to reach him and the woman he's just killed. Uh. He's just lost me. That's seems to me - on its face - like a bad decision. But, before I reach that conclusion, I want to understand the risks of him killing a woman and remaining with her body as a man approached his position.

Well, the first risk would be that the man was a policeman. Not far-fetched, right? We know Neil came by on his beat some five minutes later. Another risk might be that someone in one of the nearby buildings had seen what he'd done. We know Mrs. Green's window offered a view of the crime scene. She could have conceivably witnessed Lechemere do the deed and upon seeing Paul (who as far as Lechmere knew may have been a PC) arrive been emboldened to open her window and scream, "He did it!". These don't seem like good outcomes to me. But, maybe this was the best option he had. What were his other options? Walk away, into the darkness. Well. That seems pretty good. Run away, into the darkness. That seems pretty good, too. But, I'd opt for the walking, I think. Why draw attention? The man was a good bit off, in the dark. He'd seen nothing. It seems like simply walking away was decision 1A here. But, let's say he froze. Simply spit the bit and screwed the pooch on this decision. Now, what's his next decision? Any better?

He's standing in the street. A few feet from his victim. He's decided not to simply walk away. Instead he's opted to stow the knife on his person and wait for this unidentified person to reach him. At this point the man, Paul, does reach the spot and, low and behold, he tries to avoid Lechmere. Decision number two is at hand: Let the man do as he wishes and allow him to simply walk by without a word and after he does simply slip off down Buck's Row in the direction from which Paul just came, each man walking in opposite directions, putting distance between one another with each step! Maybe that first decision wasn't all that bad after all because it led to this opportunity and it's a pretty good one! But....he opts not to do that, either. Rather, he approaches the man. The man still tries to avoid him. Again, our killer won't take "NO!" for an answer. He goes to the man, touches his shoulder, and asks him to COME AND SEE THIS WOMAN!?!!?!

At this point I'd like to remind everyone of the man's supposed objective: to get away with murder. Alas, the decisions he's made to this point do not APPEAR to serve the accomplishment of that objective in any way at all. Maybe, and I'm spit-balling here, his objective wasn't to get away with murder. MAYBE it was to alert someone that a woman was lying unconscious on the ground. After all, EVERY DECISION we know that he made to this point indicates THAT was his objective.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can't find anything to disagree with there Patrick.

I'd go for walking away over running away too. But either does the job.

I'd also suggest that, even if Paul had found the body after Cross had left the scene, how many people would have legged it through the streets of Whitechapel at 3.40 in the morning (on the way to work) to chase a murderer with a knife? Certainly not me.

Cross couldn't lose. Guaranteed to get away.

Regards

Herlock

[caz]

Cross couldn't lose. Guaranteed to get away.

Ah yes, HS, but I can just hear Fisherman saying the same thing regarding Cross's decision to do anything but flee.

"Cross couldn't lose. Guaranteed to get away."

Why?

Because he was a psychopath. And that's how psychopaths roll. He loved the whole risk-taking shenanegans so much that he bought the company and could have done pretty much ANYTHING and Paul and Mizen - who were not psychopaths and so not equipped to recognise one even with the word PSYCHOPATH tattooed across his forehead - would have trusted this man with their grandmother and her life savings.

And how can we know this?

Because he had no right to get away with it under such circumstances, but he did get away. Guaranteed.

QED

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

This might be a dumb question but is Fisherman Christer Holmgren ?

Regards
Herlock

[Patrick S]

This might be a dumb question but is Fisherman Christer Holmgren ?

Regards
Herlock

Indeed.

[Elamarna]

That's all part of the point. One I've been making for years now. If we step through what I have referred to in the past as Cross/Lechmere's "decision points", we see him consistently submitting himself - completely needlessly - to scrutiny and, were he Nichols' killer, toward danger, arrest, detention, death.

You make a good point. Lechmere stated that he heard Paul some 40 yards off. I've made the point many times. If this is true, RUNNING is hardly necessary. He needed only to walk into the darkness, into the maze of the East End to avoid detection.

But, let's try and stay away from what Cross/Lechmere himself tells us. After all, some are trying to sell him as a "serialist". So, let's play along and depend on what we've gotten from sources other than the man himself.

He's in almost total darkness, in Buck's Row. We know this because Paul inspected the body but noticed no injuries. No blood. Both of which became apparent moments later in the light of Neil's lantern. Paul tells us he saw "a man". And he, Paul, tried to walk around that man. But, the man, Lechmere, didn't allow him to simply walk on. He walked toward him. Paul still didn't wish to acknowledge the man. After all, this was a dangerous spot, upon which many had been knocked down. Paul continued on until the man - undeterred by Paul's attempt to avoid him - TOUCHES his shoulder and asks him to "come see this woman". Now, wouldn't Paul's desire to avoid Cross/Lechmere, were he the killer of Nichols', have been a good thing, what he WANTED? So, we have a few decisions to this point. Let's review them with - to quote the inimitable Christer - with "an eye on Lechmere being guilty", shall we?

1. After killing and disemboweling Nichols, Cross/Lechmere walks just a few feet from the body and waits for a man walking toward him down Buck's Row. He doesn't walk away from Paul into darkness. Alas, he has an advantage in that he KNOWS which way Paul is headed. Paul has no idea which way Cross/Lechmere is headed. Rather than simply walk toward Paul, thus passing him before Paul reached Nichols body, he remained on the spot. An odd decision for a killer not wishing to be caught.

2. After killing and disemboweling Nichols and waiting in place for Paul to reach him, Cross/Lechmere refuses to allow Paul to pass him by. Paul pays no notice of the body. He tries to avoid contact with Cross/Lechmere, who he could never describe as it is pitch black in Buck's Row. Yet, Cross/Lechmere approaches Paul, who STILL ties to avoid him. Undeterred, Cross/Lechmere wants to be certain he gets this man's attention and he TOUCHES HIS SHOULDER and asks him to "come see this woman". Had he just killed Nichols' how do we explain this behavior? Obviously, the truth is that he was a man who came across a woman on the pavement at 3:45am and his behavior reinforces that. But, here we are assuming he killed Nichols. So, how do we make sense of it? We can't. NO EXPLANATION yet given makes sense. To ascribe this behavior to a killer with a grand plan to avoid capture and suspicion makes no sense, however badly we wish it did.

3. Now our killer goes to the body with Paul. He's killed her, disemboweled her, practically chased down and BEGGED a passerby to come view his handy work, TOUCHING the man's shoulder with the very hand with which he's just butchered a prostitute WITHOUT fear of transferring blood to the man's clothing, and NOW he goes with the man to check this woman out. Our killer is certain - for some unknown reason - that Paul isn't a smoker carrying a match with which to light the scene. He knew that as soon as he heard his footsteps and begged him to come view his victim. So, the cunning plan proceeds perfectly and it's too dark for Paul to notice blood or injury. Paul tells Saucy Jack that he thinks she's breathing, he detects a "slight movement"! PERFECT! Our killer can then say, "I knew it! Another drunk passed out! Let's be on our way!" But...he doesn't say that. He says that he disagrees and that he think's she dead. Paul the pasty then wishes to MOVE the body. Having just gutted this poor woman, in the dark, Chuck the Ripper eschews this opportunity to contact the body and explain any blood that may be on his clothing. He decides....no. He refuses to touch the body. At all. The true believers will tell you it's because moving the body would have revealed the injuries. Hmmmm. He's now concerned about the injuries being revealed? He forced this poor fellow to come see the body. He wasn't concerned that he had a match which would easily have revealed the injuries. But now he's worried the man may notice. Even though he begged him to come see. Wouldn't let him walk on. Touched his shoulder. "Come see this woman." Now he's worried the man might see the injuries that - were he her killer - HE KNEW WERE THERE?

4. So, he's done for Nichols, dissected her, run Paul down and forced him to view his victims body, he's refused an opportunity to explain his victims blood on his person by NOT assisting Paul in moving the body....and now he decides to go with Paul......IN SEARCH OF A POLICMAN. Remember, he knew which way Paul was headed. Paul did not know which was HE was headed. He could have VERY EASILY said, "I'm due at work that way (the other direction down Buck's Row). I'll look for a cop my way, you look your way, and we'll both send help should we find it." No. He passed that opportunity up in favor of ACTUALLY heading off with Paul looking for a cop. He never tries to leave Paul and UREAKA! they find a PC, Mizen, in Baker's Row. Again, he so CERTAIN that there is no blood on his person that can be revealed by Mizen's lantern that he's perfectly comfortable with this part of the plan. He knows Mizen won't check him out. Or search for the murder weapon hidden in his coat. Or ask the men to lead him BACK to the body. This is going PERFECTLY for our killer so for! Now, the men tell Mizen that there's a woman, dead or drunk, lying in Buck's Row. But, our killer tells Mizen that, for his part, he think's she's DEAD! Good strategy. I mean, he'd now, right! He killed her. Mizen claims that Cross/Lechmere told him he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. Paul doesn't corroborate Mizen. Cross/Lechemere doesn't corroborate Mizen. Alas, we're asked to believe Mizen. Only Mizen. Okay. Let's believe Mizen. So, how did our killer relate this information to Mizen without Paul contradicting him? It's so OBVIOUS! It's the Mizen Scam! He did it out of poor, dumb, gullible Paul's earshot! That's the theory. So, follow this: He kills Nichols, guts her, hears a guy coming, steps a few feet from her rather than walking away, forces the guy to examine the woman with him, refuses an opportunity to move the body and explain any blood, decides to accompany the man on a quest to find a PC, they FIND a PC, he TELLS the PC that he - the killer - thinks the woman is DEAD, and THEN he pulls the PC aside to tell him a BS story, one his companion KNOWS is not true, without fear that Paul would find his heading off for a secret conversation with the PC suspicious, that he'd wonder what they talked about, that he would refuse to stand idly while he chatted up Mizen out of earshot. Oh, and remember. Paul says nothing, either in Lloyd's or at the inquest, about a secret conversation.

5. Speaking of Lloyd's and inquest. Let's stick with the fantasy that Cross/Lechmere is our man. He killed Nichols. But, wait. He SHOWS UP at the inquest 48 hours after the murder? BUT WHY? Because of the bombshell that was Paul's statement in Lloyd's you see. That bombshell has Paul crediting himself with ALL of the action. The killer is merely "a man". That's the extent of his description. A man. Paul saw a man by the body. And from there Paul is the prime actor. He inspects the body. He goes in search of Mizen. HE tell us that Mizen acted improperly and that it was a great shame as he'd just been told the WOMAN WAS DEAD! Oh, and another thing....Mizen didn't ask either man his name, where he lived, worked, or anything at all. He merely said, "Alright"....and walked on. Yet...here is the killer. At the inquest. Ready to testify. Just as he approached Paul. Just as he went to find Mizen. Now he's at the inquest. Evil genius or innocent man? Clearly we know the answer. It's obvious to anyone with common sense and no agenda.

Patrick

Very good summary of many of the major points in the case of Lechmere/ Cross being the killer in Bucks Row.

These are all very real issues and as yet no convincing arguments have been put which deal with them from a pro Lechmere standpoint.


All the best

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah yes, HS, but I can just hear Fisherman saying the same thing regarding Cross's decision to do anything but flee.

"Cross couldn't lose. Guaranteed to get away."

Why?

Because he was a psychopath. And that's how psychopaths roll. He loved the whole risk-taking shenanegans so much that he bought the company and could have done pretty much ANYTHING and Paul and Mizen - who were not psychopaths and so not equipped to recognise one even with the word PSYCHOPATH tattooed across his forehead - would have trusted this man with their grandmother and her life savings.

And how can we know this?

Because he had no right to get away with it under such circumstances, but he did get away. Guaranteed.

QED

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Yep, 'he was a psychopath,' would explain it all. It would also explain why Hutchinson was Jack, or Robert Mann, or Barnett, or...well anyone else really.

Regards

Herlock

[Elamarna]

We know his goal: to GET AWAY WITH MURDER. A clear, obvious goal, right? So, how did he go about it? Well. He's just killed Nichols. Let's imagine he's cut her throat, and he's in process of mutilating her abdomen. He's fully engaged in that as it's one of the main reasons why he does what he does when he hears a man approaching down Buck's Row. We know that Buck's Row was very dark. What does he do? What decision does he make? He stops mutilating Nichols. Good decision. He steps away from her body. Okay. Still good. He stops....and he waits for that man to reach him and the woman he's just killed. Uh. He's just lost me. That's seems to me - on its face - like a bad decision. But, before I reach that conclusion, I want to understand the risks of him killing a woman and remaining with her body as a man approached his position.

Well, the first risk would be that the man was a policeman. Not far-fetched, right? We know Neil came by on his beat some five minutes later. Another risk might be that someone in one of the nearby buildings had seen what he'd done. We know Mrs. Green's window offered a view of the crime scene. She could have conceivably witnessed Lechemere do the deed and upon seeing Paul (who as far as Lechmere knew may have been a PC) arrive been emboldened to open her window and scream, "He did it!". These don't seem like good outcomes to me. But, maybe this was the best option he had. What were his other options? Walk away, into the darkness. Well. That seems pretty good. Run away, into the darkness. That seems pretty good, too. But, I'd opt for the walking, I think. Why draw attention? The man was a good bit off, in the dark. He'd seen nothing. It seems like simply walking away was decision 1A here. But, let's say he froze. Simply spit the bit and screwed the pooch on this decision. Now, what's his next decision? Any better?

Walking would seem like a good option until that is one remembers what was said in the documentary: " a lack of easy escape routes" which would make this difficult. So do we need to think again?

Not really because the statement is just patiently untrue to begin with.

A look at a period map shows there were options to:
The West down Bucks Row to Bakers Row.
North via Queen Ann or Thomas street's.
South via Thomas or Court or just back Eastwards down Winthrop.
All were possible.

Or as you have suggested Patrick just East back past Paul.
Of course the documentary like much of the case against Lechmere is full of such misleading statements.

Keep up the good work.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Having read the thread through, I find the same sort of critique I always find, from the same people who always present it. I will therefore not respond to for example Patricks posts - I have done so before, and Patrick knows that. If he - or anybody else - should feel that there has been any new point raised, then please repeat that point, and I will look into it.

What I WILL do is to answer Herlock Sholmesī post. It involves a number of things that have been answered dozens of times too, but since Sherlock is new out here, and since he makes some points that need answering ...

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.

The point I was trying to make is that killing is a risky business. You do not think, it seems, that the killer would take risks, but then you propose that he should have taken days off to kill. That in itself would bevery risky, thatīs all I am saying.

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?

If he was the killer, then we can see that he probably used more than one route to his work, effectively spreading the murder sites over an area that would not make sense for the police to combine with any logical route. If he had killed along the Hanbury Street route only, it would have been another thing, but connecting the dots as they emerged would not benefit the police until they had a suspect.
In retrospect, we can see that there is a logical geographical pattern that fits with Lechmere, and of course, if the police had revisited him and investigated him after the Kelly murder, they would have seen what we see, and so he would have become a suspect.
What we can learn from that is that he was NOT revisited.
A point that must be made in combination with this is that many serialists who have been caught, have attracted attention because the police in retrospect have seen that the murders they are looking into make sense when pinned in the suspect. Before they have that suspect, though, the series may well have looked random. The exact same applies to Lechmere - once we can trace his logical moves, we see that he fits, but before we haul him in, we canīt.
So your criticism becomes a bit irrelevant; we must assume that he hoped to kill and eviscerate Nichols undetected, but as fate woud have it, Paul interrupted him, and he had to deal with that. But he saw to it that he did not leave his name with Mizen, and he made no initial effort to seek out the police after it was revealed that the woman he claimed to have found was murdered. It was not until after the Paul interview was published that he took that step, and when he did, he could tell the police that he was on his way to work when he came across Nichols.
It was therefore only with Chapman we may reason that he seems to have taken a brazen risk, whereas the nex victims, Stride and Eddowes, took the heat off the Hanbury Street route, as did Kelly. And the Chapman murder becomes less risky in this nrespect if Tabram belongs to the series, since she was killed in a spot that did not correspond with Nichols and Chapman. So after Chapman, the police were left with not one, but three suggested routes, George Yard-29 Hanbury Street, 29 Hanbury Street - Bucks Row and Bucks Row - George Yard.
Finally, either of these stretches would be of interest to the police only if they accepted that the killings took place along a route that was regularly used by a person travelling along it. And they seem never to have entertained the idea that the killer was a working man, upholding a steady job and killing as he travelled to it. They seem to have anticipated a deranged person, killing at random in a district where he probably lived.
The risk you identify is therefore not a relevant one until a suspect is investigated with the murder site pattern as a background.

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 killings seemingly were affairs of minutes only. Eddowes is the best example of this. If he added a period of five, ten, fifteen minutes to his working trek, that would in all probability have sufficed. I doubt very much that bis wife would have noticed it at around 3 AM in the mornings. Mind you, we cannot exclude that she DID notice it and that she DID suspect him. What we do not know is whether she would turn him in if she did. She may have lieved it terror, or she may have been merrily unknowing, there can be no certainty either way. Gary Ridgways wife knew quite well that Gary was not at home as the Green River victims died, but she nevertheless said that he was the best man she had ever met, caring and loving and always looking out for her. She had absolutely no idea.

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?

Oh-oh! That old canard again!
Letīs not dub him a pillar of society before we know what he was about. All we know is that he was married with a family and had a steady job.

Gary Ridgway was married and had a steady job.

John Eric Armstrong was married and had a steady job and a family, he was referred to as the "model sailor".

Dennis Rader was married with a family and a steady job.

John Wayne Gacy was married and had a firm of his own. He was regarded as a pillar of society. He was Pogo the clown on his spare time, doing charity. He is seen in a picture with the US first lady, Rosalynn Carter.

Ted Bundy helped out working at an emergency call center of some sort.

Peter Kürten was married and regarded as very respectable.

What was it Robert Ressler said? The typical serialist is in his late thirties, married and holds down a steady job.

Serial killers are not frothing at their mouths, generally speaking. Claiming that people with steady jobs, wifes and families are not likely to be serial killers is totally correct. Claiming that they cannot be is totally wrong. Much as most people with families and steady work are good people, it is nevertheless the favourite facade for a serialist to work behind, and for a reason - it provides a very good cover. The reason we know this is because we know that people like yourself, Sherlock, is unwilling to take this reality on board.

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?

Then it would have been a large risk. If it was noticed.

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?

Yes, they would. But what are the odds that it was the first time? It was not a job where you were dressed in shiny uniforms, it was a grimy, hard work. The carmen would have had all sorts of spots on their clothes.

As a witness, getting a bit of blood on him is plausible as he checked for life.

Which may well be exactly why he examined Nichols - to justify any blood on himself.

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.

Reasonably, yes. Although working hours and opportunities where not the same back then. However, I think the blood would only pose a risk if it was evident and fresh and on his hands more than on his clothes. And in the Nichols case, there is no certainty that he had even a speck of blood on his person.
There is also the possibility that he had facilities to wash up at Pickfords. Maybe he knew that he would have time and place to do so before engaging any co-workers. That would depend on his work, and we do not know much about the surrounding details there.
So if you are asking me "What if he arrived at work, met a dozen other carmen, was dotted with blood, clothes, ahnds and face and clad in otherwise clean attire - would not people wonder?", I unreservedly say "Yes, they would".
But I donīt think this applies at all.

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.

Did he, Herlock? Where are the examples that he ever used the name Cross other than in combination with police murder investigations? From where does you information that he used "Cross" in everyday life emanate?

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.

The papers spoke of him as Charles Cross, and with one exception (The Star), he was not given any home address. I think he gained a huge advantage from that if he wanted it not to be known in society that he was involved with the Nichols murder. If he wanted to keep family and friends and associates out of the loop, this was the way to do 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.'

If Mizen did this, then why did he not say so at the inquest? And Mizen never said that it was claimed that another PC would arrive - he firmly stated that he was told that another PC was THERE, in place.

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.

Well, to an extent, we can. The Victorian police believed in criminal anthropology, for example - it was the rule of the day. They expected a criminal dispositioin to be discernable on the outside. Not even Clouseau was that silly.
We know the police missed out in some respects of the nichols investigation. Predisposing that they would have revealed Lechmere if it was really him is not a useful idea. So many serialists have been in police custody and let go, so letīs not entertain any exaggerated belief in police infallability - it is quite understandable that they will miss out at times.

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.

He didnīt stop. I am certain that the Ripper and the Torso killer were the same man. That applies regardless if it was Lechmere or not. This killer killed in 1873 and 1889, at the very least, and not just in 1888, to my mind.

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.

On for example, the grounds that he was a family man with a steady job? On the grounds that you think that he must have had blood on his person? On the grounds that you think that the police would NEVER miss out ...?
Okay. Many others make the same call, and on the same grounds. And letīs not forget the "he would have run" argument.

Apologies for such a long post.

No worries - you just got a longer one back.

[John G]

But you have to consider the type of serial killer we're dealing with. In his profile of JtR the FBI's John Douglas concluded: "We would not expect this type of offender to be married."