Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[drstrange169]

>>Whether he was innocent or guilty, saying that he had seen/heard someone would have increased the likelihood of his being detained by Mizen.<<

Then why go to Mizen in the first place? Once you start to manufacture stories you need to keep adding to them for them to make sense.

[Guest]

It was dark and quiet, so the killer could hear anyone approach from far away?

I think quite possible he was interrupted, and he may have been lurking not far from Cross and Paul in some gateway
but i think more likley he was long gone.
But we are talking within a few minutes, and no less than 10 minites I would say based on Llewellyn's statement?

[FrankO]

‘…given the chance to alibi himself, why did he say he didn't see or hear anyone?’

Whether he was innocent or guilty, saying that he had seen/heard someone would have increased the likelihood of his being detained by Mizen.

True enough, Gary. That’s why neither an innocent or a guilty Lechmere would have done well to tell that to Mizen, if getting passed Mizen without being detained was the goal. And they both could have had that goal.

So, this wouldn’t have any effect on the question why a guilty Lechmere couldn’t or wouldn’t have said, at a later stage, that he’d heard someone moving away when he’d just turned into Buck’s Row.

[FrankO]

no big wup.

That's something to agree on, Abby!

[MrBarnett]

True enough, Gary. That’s why neither an innocent or a guilty Lechmere would have done well to tell that to Mizen, if getting passed Mizen without being detained was the goal. And they both could have had that goal.

So, this wouldn’t have any effect on the question why a guilty Lechmere couldn’t or wouldn’t have said, at a later stage, that he’d heard someone moving away when he’d just turned into Buck’s Row.

Having not mentioned it to Mizen at the time, suddenly revealing it at the inquest or when he gave a statement to the police would have seemed a bit odd.

Keeping it all low key may have been the safest approach. Turning up in your work apron to emphasise that you are a simple working man and giving a story that is essentially corroborated by Paul deprives your testimony of any drama. Saying, ‘I forgot to mention it at the time, but I saw a man with wild eyes and carrying a large bloody knife run away from the scene as I approached. I think he may have been wearing a leather apron…’ or whatever, may on the face of it constitute a great alibi, but it would have drawn the full attention of the police and the press in his direction.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Actually, as neither CAL nor Paul seemed to be aware that a murder had taken place, claiming they thought Nichols may have been drunk etc, then the need to state that they had or hadn't seen someone moving off was not necessarily part of the conversation with Mizen. Mizen didn't ask any questions. So CAL seems to have had plenty of time to prepare a defence if he thought he needed it, but he didn't even try later when asked.

[MrBarnett]

Actually, as neither CAL nor Paul seemed to be aware that a murder had taken place, claiming they thought Nichols may have been drunk etc, then the need to state that they had or hadn't seen someone moving off was not necessarily part of the conversation with Mizen. Mizen didn't ask any questions. So CAL seems to have had plenty of time to prepare a defence if he thought he needed it, but he didn't even try later when asked.

Here’s a question for you, if instead of waiting for Paul to arrive and engaging him in conversation, CAL had legged it, do you think the possibility that a crime had been committed would have occurred to Paul?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Here’s a question for you, if instead of waiting for Paul to arrive and engaging him in conversation, CAL had legged it, do you think the possibility that a crime had been committed would have occurred to Paul?

Quite possibly not. We can only guess.

[FrankO]

Having not mentioned it to Mizen at the time, suddenly revealing it at the inquest or when he gave a statement to the police would have seemed a bit odd.

Keeping it all low key may have been the safest approach. Turning up in your work apron to emphasise that you are a simple working man and giving a story that is essentially corroborated by Paul deprives your testimony of any drama. Saying, ‘I forgot to mention it at the time, but I saw a man with wild eyes and carrying a large bloody knife run away from the scene as I approached. I think he may have been wearing a leather apron…’ or whatever, may on the face of it constitute a great alibi, but it would have drawn the full attention of the police and the press in his direction.

Gary, at the inquest Lechmere stated that he believed that, had any one left the body after he got into Buck's Row, he must have heard him. That remark carried the risk of provoking a question like “Why didn’t you hear Paul, then?”. If guilty, Lechmere took that risk, just as he also took the risk that the police would ask him about why he hadn’t told Mizen that he had found the body and, together with Paul, examined it. If they did ask him about it, the most logical answer would be that they were behind time and didn’t want to run the risk of being detained, while at the same time they saw to it that the woman lying in Buck’s Row would be taken care of by the correct authorities.

So, now suppose that Lechmere, after the night of the murder, would have told the police and the inquest that he did hear someone move away ahead of him right after turning into Buck's Row. Not telling this to Mizen would fit very well with the idea of not wanting to be detained. And I think that if a guilty Lechmere was the kind of thinking-on-his-feet psychopath who was able to come up with the ‘Mizen scam’, then I’m sure he would have been able to come up with something better than “I forgot to mention it at the time, but I saw a man with wild eyes and carrying a large bloody knife run away from the scene as I approached. I think he may have been wearing a leather apron…”

[Abby Normal]

one reason why lech didnt see anyone walking or running away, nor anyone else did for that matter, is because there werent any and lech was the killer.

[MrBarnett]

Quite possibly not. We can only guess.

Really?

That would be my first thought.

[MrBarnett]

Gary, at the inquest Lechmere stated that he believed that, had any one left the body after he got into Buck's Row, he must have heard him. That remark carried the risk of provoking a question like “Why didn’t you hear Paul, then?”. If guilty, Lechmere took that risk, just as he also took the risk that the police would ask him about why he hadn’t told Mizen that he had found the body and, together with Paul, examined it. If they did ask him about it, the most logical answer would be that they were behind time and didn’t want to run the risk of being detained, while at the same time they saw to it that the woman lying in Buck’s Row would be taken care of by the correct authorities.

So, now suppose that Lechmere, after the night of the murder, would have told the police and the inquest that he did hear someone move away ahead of him right after turning into Buck's Row. Not telling this to Mizen would fit very well with the idea of not wanting to be detained. And I think that if a guilty Lechmere was the kind of thinking-on-his-feet psychopath who was able to come up with the ‘Mizen scam’, then I’m sure he would have been able to come up with something better than “I forgot to mention it at the time, but I saw a man with wild eyes and carrying a large bloody knife run away from the scene as I approached. I think he may have been wearing a leather apron…”

Yes, the less detail he provides, the less of an alibi it is, but also the fewer awkward questions it raises.

[Doctored Whatsit]

A guilty Lechmere had all the time he needed to think up some simple comment such as "there were one or two people on foot that morning, but I took them to be men on their way to work like myself". But no, he said that if there was anyone moving about after he got to Buck's Row he must have heard him. This man, if guilty, isn't cunning, he is plain stupid, or just not trying.

[Mark J D]

A guilty Lechmere had all the time he needed to think up some simple comment such as "there were one or two people on foot that morning, but I took them to be men on their way to work like myself"...

We've been through this over and over again. The moment a man says anything like that to a copper, he sets hares running.

It is very, very obvious that Lechmere knew a lot more about coppers than most people here.

M.

[FISHY1118]

one reason why lech didnt see anyone walking or running away, nor anyone else did for that matter, is because there werent any and lech was the killer.

Or the real killer had already left by the time lech discovered the body. .