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

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

So if Lech said he thought he saw someone in front of him X amount of yards away the police would immediately be suspicious and that would tighten the rope around him ?

[Mark J D]

So if Lech said he thought he saw someone in front of him X amount of yards away the police would immediately be suspicious and that would tighten the rope around him ?

Requiring me to go through this again is simple trolling.

M.

[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?

My first response caused a surprise, so to explain - everything depends on whether CAL walked or ran, and how far away Paul was when he did so. CAL's comment that if anyone had been moving in Buck's Row he would have heard him, suggests that hearing was more likely than seeing, because of the darkness, and that in the silence of the night, footsteps echoed quite loudly. If this is so, then he should have heard Paul some time before he was just forty yards away. CAL's account suggests he may have heard Paul some distance away, and waited for him. If a guilty CAL had walked off briskly when he first heard Paul, then Paul might have noticed the "tarpaulin "shape, and might not. That is what I had in mind.

Obviously if a guilty CAL had waited till Paul was forty yards away then ran, then Paul would have been suspicious, of course. But as CAL insisted that the sound of footsteps carried clearly, then he should have heard Paul a fair distance away.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Requiring me to go through this again is simple trolling.

M.

The Coroner: Whitechapel-road is busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped that way?
PC Neil : Oh yes, sir. I saw a number of women in the main road going home. At that time any one could have got away.

[JeffHamm]

We can speculate all we want about what would have happened if Cross/Lechmere said he saw someone, and based upon entering that fictional line of events, we could even attribute all sorts of motivations for this “based upon an actual historical character” version of Cross/Lechmere.

But, the actual historical Cross/Lechemere didn’t say he heard or saw anything, rather just the opposite.

So why might the actual historical Cross/Lechmere say he didn’t see/hear anyone?

There really only seems to be two possibilities about the truth of that statement, the first is that he’s telling the truth, he simply did not see or hear anyone as he approached. The second is that he’s lying, and he did see or hear someone in the area and he chose to deny it.
The latter of those would, of course, suggest he’s innocent of the murder (because he saw someone around the crime scene, presumably her killer), but perhaps guilty of holding back important information and perjury. This seems unlikely given he appears to have approached the authorities to tell his story either by going to the police ahead of the inquest, or alternatively, by showing up at the inquest out of the blue – either way he’s the one who initiates contact. While an innocent Cross/Lechmere might hold this information back to avoid getting involved, etc, that doesn’t mesh well with the argument he is the one to contact the authorities in the first place.

If he’s guilty, the reason to contact the authorities would be to divert the investigation away from him, and so this would be the time to insert the “I heard someone in the distance as I came down the street, that’s what made me notice what I thought was a tarpaulin, etc”. If asked why he didn’t tell Mizen this he could say “I didn’t know she had been murdered, I had assumed she was probably just drunk, … etc”. But he didn't do that, he said he saw/heard nobody (which, of course, would be true if he's her killer).

This leaves us with the reasonable conclusion that he said he didn’t see/hear anyone because he really didn’t see/hear anyone, basically he’s telling the truth here, but he could still be guilty or innocent.

If he’s innocent, telling the truth makes sense as again, he’s approached the authorities so his motivation appears to be to do his civic duty, which would be to relay what he recalls as best he can. He doesn’t hear Paul until he himself stops walking when he reaches the middle of the street and realizes it’s a woman. Perhaps not surprising as the sound of his own footsteps would be louder than those of Paul’s 40 yards behind. Of course, that applies to the footsteps of anyone ahead of him too, and if the killer leaves when Cross/Lechmere is even further away than Paul is to C/L, then not hearing the killer’s footsteps is not entirely surprising. Given how dark it is supposed to have been, not seeing anyone is also not surprising. Of course, it’s also possible the murder happened well before Cross/Lechmere arrived in Buck’s Row too, meaning there was already nobody to see or hear.

If he’s guilty, then there was nobody to see or hear as well. If he’s approached the authorities, the motivation there would appear to divert suspicion away from himself. The argument often takes the form of “C/L has heard of Paul’s story in the paper and fears that he himself will be identified by the police, so to circumvent suspicion he goes to the police/inquest himself.” Just showing up at the inquest unannounced seems a pretty sure way to end up under pretty intense scrutiny as his statement, given under oath, will need to be verified after the fact, and also the police will want to know why he’s not come to them already since he’s probably made them look bad. The counter-argument is generally of the "but the police didn't investigate witnesses" sort. Of course, going to the police will result in being questioned and giving a statement, etc, so that’s a risk of drawing the investigation towards himself as prior to this he's unknown to the authorities. Regardless, the risk would have to be presumed to have been judged by a guilty C/L as worth taking as it gives him a chance to try and control the direction of the investigation away from himself, even though prior to his coming forward he is actually unknown to them at all. Still, I suppose the idea is that he's pre-emptively getting involved, and he figures by coming forward that will make him look less suspicious (basically, the "anything that looks like innocent behaviour is proof of guilt" line of reasoning - he's just that clever and cunning). Such a motivation, however, makes saying he saw/heard nobody a bit devoid of any attempt to actually direct the investigation. In fact, nothing he does say really looks like a statement that has a clear direction aspect to it – he found a woman in the street, he calls Paul over, they both examine her and notice not very much, leave and eventually find PC Mizen, and tell him what they found. Other than finding the body, neither he nor Paul really provide much more than that directly (we can, of course, infer from their statements it was clearly dark enough that they couldn’t see her wounds or the blood, which also suggests their examination of her was very cursory and quick). From C/L’s inquest statement, I see no evidence of him attempting to influence the direction of the investigation in any way. He doesn’t even go the extra mile to ensure he’s not brought under suspicion by adding even the suggestion that he might have seen someone flitting around the corner ahead of him or he might have heard footsteps ahead of him, etc. A guilty C/L’s motivation for inserting himself into the investigation is supposed to be to divert suspicion away from himself, but nowhere does he offer anything beyond what Paul has already said – in fact in Paul’s newspaper account attention is focused upon Paul and C/L is already background material. Coming forward brings him more into the spotlight, and nothing he says then appears to direct that spotlight in a direction of his choosing.

Basically, from what we have, it appears he told the truth, and he didn’t see or hear anyone. And telling the truth on that point is expected for an innocent C/L but unexpected for a guilty one. It would be an obvious opportunity for a guilty C/L to try and control the direction of the investigation by diverting it away from himself – but the proposed quick thinking cunning psychopath that the guilty C/L is suggested to be in order to pull off the Mizen-scam, in order to approach the authorities to appear uninvolved, etc, appears to have overlooked this rather obvious option despite having a few days to think about it. I’m not seeing any consistency in the explanations or his character traits if he’s guilty, which to me makes it the less credible hypothesis.

- Jeff

[Mark J D]

See what happened there? By slow degrees,

... suggests that hearing was more likely than seeing...

was transformed into

... CAL insisted that the sound of footsteps carried clearly...

Amazing, eh?

I tell you, if Darwin had witnessed such remarkable acts of evolutionary mutation, he'd have called his great book 'The Origin of Specious'...

M.

[Mark J D]

... PC Neil: I saw a number of women in the main road going home. At that time any one could have got away.

Functional translation: Lechmere can't have been a guilty man who got away, because PC Neil said that any guilty man could have got away.

Stunning.

M.

[Mark J D]

... Basically, from what we have, it appears he told the truth, and he didn’t see or hear anyone. And telling the truth on that point is expected for an innocent C/L but unexpected for a guilty one.

Uh, no. For reasons discussed on all those previous occasions...

... It would be an obvious opportunity for a guilty C/L to try and control the direction of the investigation by diverting it away from himself...

Again, no. Even a half-intelligent criminal knows to stay as close to the truth as possible, and not tell unnecessary lies -- especially unnecessary lies that set hares running.

M.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Functional translation: Lechmere can't have been a guilty man who got away, because PC Neil said that any guilty man could have got away.

Stunning.

M.

Of course any guilty man could have got away that is the whole point. Lech had nothing to lose [ if he was guilty ], by saying he saw someone in the distance but it was dark and I only saw him from the back . By saying he saw no one after being stood next to a freshly killed body he immediately makes himself the prime suspect. Unless of course he was innocent and felt he had nothing to hide

[Mark J D]

Lech had nothing to lose [ if he was guilty ], by saying he saw someone in the distance but it was dark and I only saw him from the back .

He'd have everything to lose by lying in such a way in such a situation. As any kid brought up by a copper would know perfectly well.

We've done all this before.

M.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Precisely, you beat me to it.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Again, no. Even a half-intelligent criminal knows to stay as close to the truth as possible, and not tell unnecessary lies -- especially unnecessary lies that set hares running.

M.

When the infamous A6 murder occurred. Hanratty's alibi was, that he was holed up in Liverpool with some fellow criminals . Then he changed it to, he was in a boarding house in Rhyl . So much for him staying close to the truth . As Sutcliffe when his wife , Sonia gave him an alibi for one of the murders. What did he say "Actually love I was driving through Leeds that night when the murder occurred but it wasn't me". Or OJ Simpson " The gloves don't fit " not " The gloves don't fit your honour , but they may have shrunk being drenched in blood " Did they think about staying close to the truth thinking it was the best option ? If a murderer can make up an alibi which may get them off the hook they will do.

[Darryl Kenyon]

He'd have everything to lose by lying in such a way in such a situation. As any kid brought up by a copper would know perfectly well.

We've done all this before.

M.

Could you prove otherwise that someone was at the far end of Bucks row ? I doubt it

[drstrange169]

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

Or the real killer/s was highly adept are sneaking away unseen in even the closest of encounters, as evidenced in Berner Street.

[Mark J D]

Blah ... Hanratty ... blah ... Sutcliffe ... blah ... OJ... blah...

Terrific. In response to my pointing out that 'Even a half-intelligent criminal knows to stay as close to the truth as possible, and not tell unnecessary lies', I'm offered a collection of quarter-wits every one of whom got caught and convicted...

Goodnight, children.

M.