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

[Newbie]

Only the ones who think Lechmere's guilty would have him lose his psychopath thinking abilities and dash right into Neil's arms.

In reality, Neil would only have been a minute or two closer to the crime spot after waiting for Paul and examining the body. How helpful would that be for a guilty Lechmere? What if the carmen walked right into his arms after leaving the body? What if Paul heard or saw him in a side street and called him over?

What are psycopath thinking abilities? Who ever posited it missed the mark and invented a distraction. Successful serial killers are typically cool, calculated and meticulous in planning. It was the first, or one of the first, murders of JtR: one would think he would be extra careful in planning it out. That planning would require casing the area well enough to know where the beat cops were likely to be at any given point in time, when regular commuters would pass along Buck's row on their way to work, etc.. We know that the murder happened 1 month after Lech moved and was using this new route to work. Did he actually head off to work typically around 3:30 am, or did he head off earlier to essentially case the area? In my opinion, an earlier starting time that morning is the only explanation for his odd behavior at the inquest.

There weren't many people milling about Buck's row between 3 am - 4 am.
According to slaughterhouse worker Henry Tomkins:

The Coroner: Is your work noisy?
Witness: No, sir, very quiet.
The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday morning, say after two o'clock?
Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The gates were open and we heard no cry.
The Coroner: Did anybody come to the slaughterhouse that night?
Witness: Nobody passed except the policeman.

PC Neil mentions seeing no one on Buck's row on his earlier pass around 3:15, nor on his following pass 30 minutes later.
Both individuals of course missed Lechmere and Paul....so their discernment is somewhat in question; but it is fairly safe to say that there were very few people, who were not prostitutes, passing along Buck's row between 3 and 4 am.

My point is that JtR had to take into consideration a time frame for the execution of his crime: one where he would be left undisturbed by regular commuters passing down the street on their way to work (which most likely would be headed towards Spitsfield's or the train depot area), and where a beat cop did not block his escape route when he was finished and chose to flee. If Lechmere was the murderer, the escape route would be towards his work, and the escape time would not be 3:37 pm: Neil being near the top of the Buck's row at that time.

Paul's arrival down the street would have been unexpected, because Paul typically would leave his home around 3:45 am to make it to his job on time: that departure time matches the distance between his home and his job. What seems to have happened was that Paul left earlier that morning than he typically did....he tells people that he met Lech by the body at 3:45 am....but that was the time PC Neil says that he first encountered the body. My conclusion from this is that Paul's arrival at 3:37 am was unexpected.

One very valid contingency option for Lech, once Paul disturbed his plans, was to continue with his original time table of leaving the crime scene for work at about 3:40 am, but instead of continuing with his usual task, he would play a game acting as the concerned first witness. He'd go through the motion of examining the body while sticking with the original 3:40ish departure time. That is why he suddenly discontinued the examination with his "i'm not touching the body" statement. After that statement, the examination was effectively finished, and both then headed off to an adjacent beat to find PC Mizen around 3:40 am.

[Newbie]

Only the ones who think Lechmere's guilty would have him lose his psychopath thinking abilities and dash right into Neil's arms.

In reality, Neil would only have been a minute or two closer to the crime spot after waiting for Paul and examining the body. How helpful would that be for a guilty Lechmere? What if the carmen walked right into his arms after leaving the body? What if Paul heard or saw him in a side street and called him over?

I didn't understand this part:

Why would Neil wait for Paul while examining the body?
Who do you say Paul hypothetically might hear in a side street, and calls over?

One interesting factor involved is the sense of hearing.
Neil could hear the other constable passing by on Brady while examining Nichol's body (he says so at the inquest).
That would be 100 + yards down Buck's row.
I would bet these cobbled streets and aligning buildings were excellent acoustic channels: so one could hear footsteps from far away.
However, once you go to a different street, the ability of sounds to travel to you would be greatly reduced.

Neil, at the top of Buck's row, would most likely hear someone walking towards him from the point of the murder scene: although from that
point on, the street does widen and there are a few bisecting streets which would diminish the effect.

But from the murder scene to Brady street, the sound of hobnailed footsteps should be clear and obvious.
There is zero reason Lechmere wouldn't hear Paul once he turned onto Buck's row, or Paul wouldn't hear Lechmere at 3:37 am, with the streets basically quiet. That's more than a half a minute of walking with neither party realizing the other's existence....in a tough, dangerous neighborhood.
Zero reasons!

And Lech uses his sudden aural awareness conveniently to explain why he stopped, not proceeding directly to the body, but standing in limbo in the middle of Buck's row. Most people would then continue moving towards the body to try to get better information before placing themselves in the path of a stranger (who suddenly popped up) to get him to stop. Why be so confident the stranger is a good guy? How did he know it was a woman, when a few steps beforehand he thought it might be tarpaulin? And why was he walking on that side of the street in the first place, convention would have traffic moving on the opposite side. PC Neil moved down Buck's row, in the opposite direction, on the same side - which would follow basic convention.

Lech is most probably lying: the whole sequence of events that he describes at the murder scene should raise suspicions with everyone.
He seems to go to lengths to exaggerate his distance from the body which lead to puzzling questions. Why some here are completely comfortable with his testimony, i have no idea.

Does it make him the murderer?....maybe, but he would have other reasons to lie. It just doesn't look good and there is no way to go around it.

[Newbie]

One last point:

Some here, as a last resort, point to citizen Lech approaching the police as proof of his innocence.

Most probably, (innocent) citizen Lech went to the police not out of any sense of civic duty,
but because he was fearful that he would eventually be discovered, and then face scrutiny as being the murderer.

His route to work was already known, the hour in which he went to work was already known, and his vocation was known.
Whether guilty or innocent, he would have attempted to waylay any suspicions by not having the police seek him out,
but coming to them.

It was the smart move, whether innocent or guilty.

[Newbie]

Personally,

I think its a coin flip whether this guy is the murderer...and therefore Jack the Ripper.

The only reason I can think of that would cover everything and make him innocent was leaving early to shag a prostitute;
encountering the body around 3:36 am; examining the body and knowing the nature of the situation (& that it was a she);
hearing Paul's footsteps at 3:37 am, at the corner of Brady & Buck's row; and then pretending to go back in time a few minutes, having just discovered the body (again!).

His wife would have known whether he should be in the middle of Buck's row at 3:38 am. To leave consistently at 3:15 am (the old boss wants me in early bit), and then be no farther than the middle of Buck's row might make her suspicious that something was up.

There were several things he did at the inquest that seemed to indicate he was hiding information that his wife's acquaintances might find out in the newspaper - and casually inform his wife. How many of them knew that Charles Lechmere was Charles Cross? He could pretty much control the newspaper information that came directly into his house.....and quite possibly, his wife was illiterate.
His mom might have been likewise illiterate.
It would be interesting to know more about this.
His wife did compose a poem on his death: but this quite possibly was orally translated.

[MrBarnett]

Personally,

I think its a coin flip whether this guy is the murderer...and therefore Jack the Ripper.

The only reason I can think of that would cover everything and make him innocent was leaving early to shag a prostitute;
encountering the body around 3:36 am; examining the body and knowing the nature of the situation (& that it was a she);
hearing Paul's footsteps at 3:37 am, at the corner of Brady & Buck's row; and then pretending to go back in time a few minutes, having just discovered the body (again!).

His wife would have known whether he should be in the middle of Buck's row at 3:38 am. To leave consistently at 3:15 am (the old boss wants me in early bit), and then be no farther than the middle of Buck's row might make her suspicious that something was up.

There were several things he did at the inquest that seemed to indicate he was hiding information that his wife's acquaintances might find out in the newspaper - and casually inform his wife. How many of them knew that Charles Lechmere was Charles Cross? He could pretty much control the newspaper information that came directly into his house.....and quite possibly, his wife was illiterate.
His mom might have been likewise illiterate.
It would be interesting to know more about this.
His wife did compose a poem on his death: but this quite possibly was orally translated.

His mother had a rather respectable upbringing.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/motives-and-reasons/-4-product-of-environment/28472-maria-louisa-roulson-aka-old-ma-lechmere

[rjpalmer]

The only reason I can think of that would cover everything and make him innocent was leaving early to shag a prostitute

Well, I have to admit that I never expected to encounter this line of reasoning.

[GBinOz]

Hi Newbie,

Welcome to the forum.

Your points are very logical and I agree with most of them. I don't believe that Lechmere found Polly in Buck's Row, unless she was sleeping in the gateway. More likely he would have picked her up on Whitechapel Road, which means that he left home earlier than he stated. When I used to start early at work and arose at 5:30am my wife barely stirred and would have had no clue as to what time I left the house, so Mrs Lechmere may have not have had a clue as to his departure time. If he were innocent he would have had no reason to hide the finding of the body from his wife and friends, so the false name would not have been necessary for that purpose.

With regard to the side of the road that he walked, he approached Buck's Row from the north and would leave it towards the north so it makes sense that saty on that side of the road.

Cheers, George

[John Wheat]

It's worth noting that the name could so easily be traced back to Lechmere.

[Abby Normal]

It's worth noting that the name could so easily be traced back to Lechmere.

hi John
but apparently no one did for over a hundred years.

[John Wheat]

hi John
but apparently no one did for over a hundred years.

Hi Abby

Are you seriously telling me the police of the time didn't join the dots? Because if you are you're living in cloud cuckoo land. The name is a non issue.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Are you seriously telling me the police of the time didn't join the dots? Because if you are you're living in cloud cuckoo land. The name is a non issue.

hi john
maybe they did. theres just no evidence for it. seems they never did join the dots and found out his cross name.
i disagree the name is a non issue. it probably has an innocent explanation, and imho it more than likely does. but its still another discrepency with lech that needs to be explained away.

and of course, using an alias is a well known criminal tactic.

[John Wheat]

hi john
maybe they did. theres just no evidence for it. seems they never did join the dots and found out his cross name.
i disagree the name is a non issue. it probably has an innocent explanation, and imho it more than likely does. but its still another discrepency with lech that needs to be explained away.

and of course, using an alias is a well known criminal tactic.

Hi Abby
I don't agree. I think it's highly probable that the Police at the time looked into Lechmere. Just what are these other discrepancies with Lechmere that need to be explained?

[MrBarnett]

Hi Abby
I don't agree. I think it's highly probable that the Police at the time looked into Lechmere. Just what are these other discrepancies with Lechmere that need to be explained?

Hi John,

How do you think they would have found his real name? Who would have known it?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby
I don't agree. I think it's highly probable that the Police at the time looked into Lechmere. Just what are these other discrepancies with Lechmere that need to be explained?

the disagreement with mizen, being seen near a freshly killed victim before raising an alarm.

[John Wheat]

the disagreement with mizen, being seen near a freshly killed victim before raising an alarm.

As per usual with Lechmere it's all about semantics. Lechmere found a body. So what? Someone had to. I don't believe that anything we know about Lechmere is surfice to point the finger at him in fact there are very few so called suspects where this is the case and it's plain wrong to point the finger at innocent men. It's a cop out to say but those murders happened in 1888.