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

[GUT]

Hi John,

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

Went to his work place or home, both of which addresses he gave

[MrBarnett]

Went to his work place or home, both of which addresses he gave

So he was known as Charles Lechmere at work?

[GUT]

So he was known as Charles Lechmere at work?

Who knows?

[MrBarnett]

Who knows?

Presumably those who are certain he was checked out and his true identity discovered. But of course, if he was known as Lechmere at work, it’s all the more odd that he presented himself to the police and the coroner as Cross.

And presumably there are numerous examples of the police checking out the IDs of witnesses?

[FrankO]

What are psycopath thinking abilities?

What I was alluding to is that, generally, pro-Lechmerians are saying that Lechmere was able to think on his feet, first coming up with the idea to fool Paul and then to design "the Mizen scam", making things up as he went along. Yet, when it comes to getting away instead, according to these same pro-Lechmerians, he just has to run right into the arms of Neil and, apparently, would have lost his psychopath thinking abilities: without thinking he only runs, doesn't stop to watch around a corner, doesn't listen for sounds, doesn't look for places to hide (because, apparently, there were absolutely no places where he could do that), to dodge anybody - according to them, he has to just blindly run into Neil's arms - period, also because they have Paul raise an alarm the second he hears Lechmere run away and have PC's immediately hear the alarm and know where it's coming from.

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..

If Lechmere was the meticulously planning type who'd cased the area as you suggest, then he would have known 1) when he left home that morning and, therefore, when he arrived at the scene, 2) he had enough time to get away without running or even walking into the arms of Neil and 3) that Paul ususally arrived at the scene a minute or 2 before he actually did on the night in question.

[FrankO]

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?

What I meant was: according to pro-Lechmerians Lechmere wouldn't have run because (Neil was so close by that) he would have run right into Neil's arms. Yet, by waiting for Paul, together examining the body and only then leaving the scene, Neil would just have come closer to the crime scene (he would have been a minute or 2 closer on his route to the crime scene since Lechmere first heard Paul), making the chance bigger that he and Paul would walk into his arms after having left the body.

After having left the scene, a guilty Lechmere would quite possibly not have drawn's Paul's attention to hearing a PC approaching from a side street (as pulling something like the Mizen scam would have been much more difficult, if not impossible), but the same can't be said for Paul. He may very well have heard Neil approaching in a side street and have called him over.

[Sunny Delight]

I think it is abundantly clear that Charles Cross was merely a working man who on walking to his place of work happened across a Ripper victim. I dont see anymore to it than that and never have.

[Newbie]

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.

Who claims that Lechmere is the Ripper because he discovered the body? If there only existed that, his use of Cross at the inquest and his disagreement with PC Mizen about what was said, then yeah....that would fall into the huh - so what category.

In my mind, Lech had 3-4 opportunities to clear himself based on evidence:

A. Paul stating to having heard footsteps ahead before arriving at the crime scene. Why?
B. Evincing at the courtroom that his wife and family were aware of his attending the inquest: using Lechmere, furnishing his home address, not dressing up like he was going to work, the story of his discovering Polly Nichol's body being a part of the family lore. Again why? Lech's wife was his most important witness.
C. The apron part of Catherine Eddowes not being found in a direct line between the murder scene and Lech's home.
D. Going to the police in a timely fashion (instead of waiting for the story to break), or staying with the body while Paul fetched a PC.

4 opportunities /4 failures

and then, it would be nice if...

E. the blood was described to no longer be flowing from the neck wound when Neil first examined the body (as Neil described in his testimony at the inquest)
F. his testimony conformed with PC Mizen's

[C. F. Leon]

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

Is it really "often discarded". I don't know if anyone "discarded" the idea until recently. Even nowadays it's only used by suspect-focused theorists because it conflicts with their own theories. The only issue with Cross' account (other than timing, but ALL the witness accounts have some conflicts with others'- especially Timing) is his name change, and that doesn't effect what he saw. (Or claimed he saw.)

[Newbie]

What I meant was: according to pro-Lechmerians Lechmere wouldn't have run because (Neil was so close by that) he would have run right into Neil's arms. Yet, by waiting for Paul, together examining the body and only then leaving the scene, Neil would just have come closer to the crime scene (he would have been a minute or 2 closer on his route to the crime scene since Lechmere first heard Paul), making the chance bigger that he and Paul would walk into his arms after having left the body.

After having left the scene, a guilty Lechmere would quite possibly not have drawn's Paul's attention to hearing a PC approaching from a side street (as pulling something like the Mizen scam would have been much more difficult, if not impossible), but the same can't be said for Paul. He may very well have heard Neil approaching in a side street and have called him over.

Previously, i imagined that PC Neil's route was clockwise along White Chapel, partially up Baker's street, and then turning up Buck's row heading towards the murder scene. Some one claims to have discovered his route (the PC Neil's route thread) and marks where PC Neil would have been (green) in relation to Lech/Paul (blue) when leaving the murder scene. If accurate, it would pretty much put PC Neil near the top of Buck's row (along Baker Street) at 3:37 am.

The main argument against Lech is that his best option was to simply leave the murder scene upon hearing Paul's footsteps.
Because of Neil's location, Lech could easily have figured to stay put; besides, he had a wonderful alibi of just going to work, getting started at 3:30 am.
Paul's unexpected early appearance that morning threw the mutilation part of Lech's plan off.

• 

[Newbie]

His mother had a rather respectable upbringing.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/moti...ld-ma-lechmere

Thankyou,

i've been through this thread before.

Lech's mom grew up on or near an estate of the influential Clive family: her father being a servant to that family, who left her a tidy sum in a trust. It doesn't necessarily answer my question, but it does suggest that she could read and write.

It was proposed that Lech, born in a 'respectable' family, used Cross to avoid scandalizing the good Lechmere name;
or, that the name Lechmere being so unusual, people in Herefordhsire would take notice, and the dispensation of the trust fund would be jeopardized by public scandal.

Its a decent theory; however, its missing some explanative powers.

It doesn't explain why Lech dressed up for the respectable society of an inquest as Jug the Chimney sweep;
nor why he seemed to not offer his address;
nor why no one in the family seemed to know that Lech was the discoverer of Polly Nichol's body.

My explanation fits the apparent evidence: that Lech was hiding his involvement from his wife & neighbors, and lied about his time leaving home. You would think he would do the opposite: that family and maybe next door neighbors would back up his story.
Using Cross, during the incident of running over the child made sense (Cross was possibly the name Pickford's admin knew him by who were providing him legal aid or could attest to him being a good employee and careful driver).
It makes no sense at the Nichol's inquest, because Pickford's provides no alibi for him.

Lech emphasizes his 20 years (who else at the inquest gives their time of employment?) of working at Pickford's - why?
I'd guess he entertained the possibility that he was a suspect. If so, why keep his best witness(es) in the dark?
Wasn't he risking the good name of Lechmere by not squashing immediately any suspicions about him.

I'm open for someone else to come up with something more convincing as to his behavior at the inquest.
I'm not one bit sold on the argument that he was at the inquest because he was a good citizen doing his duty,
which is essentially the argument.

[Aethelwulf]

Thankyou,

i've been through this thread before.

Lech's mom grew up on or near an estate of the influential Clive family: her father being a servant to that family, who left her a tidy sum in a trust.
It doesn't necessarily answer my question, but it does suggest that she could read and write.

It was proposed that Lech, born in a 'respectable' family, used Cross to avoid scandalizing the good Lechmere name;
or, that the name Lechmere being so unusual, people in Herefordhsire would take notice, and the dispensation of the trust fund would be jeopardized by public scandal.

Its a decent theory; however, its missing some explanative powers.

It doesn't explain why Lech dressed up for the respectable society of an inquest as Jug the Chimney sweep;
nor why he seemed to not offer his address;
nor why no one in the family seemed to know that Lech was the discoverer of Polly Nichol's body.

My explanation fits the apparent evidence: that Lech was hiding his involvement from his wife & neighbors, and lied about his time leaving home.
You would think he would do the opposite: that family and maybe next door neighbors would back up his story.
Using Cross, during the incident of running over the child made sense (Cross was possibly the name Pickford's admin knew him by who were providing him legal aid).
It makes no sense at the Nichol's inquest, because Pickford's provides no alibi for him.

Lech emphasizes his 20 years (who else at the inquests give their time of employment?) of working at Pickford's - why?
I'd guess he entertained the possibility that he was a suspect. If so, why keep his best witness(es) in the dark?
Wasn't he risking the good name of Lechmere by not squashing immediately any suspicions about him.

I'm open for someone else to come up with something more convincing as to his behavior at the inquest.
I'm not one bit sold on the argument that he was at the inquest because he was a good citizen doing his duty,
which is essentially the argument.

Lech was observed by Paul in the middle of the road. That is the sum total of the case against Lechmere - everything else is smoke and mirrors.

[Newbie]

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

Is it really "often discarded". I don't know if anyone "discarded" the idea until recently. Even nowadays it's only used by suspect-focused theorists because it conflicts with their own theories. The only issue with Cross' account (other than timing, but ALL the witness accounts have some conflicts with others'- especially Timing) is his name change, and that doesn't effect what he saw. (Or claimed he saw.)

There are more issues than that:

Paul not describing hearing Lechmere's footsteps ahead of him over a course of a minute walking behind him, just out of sight in the darkness;
or Lechmere, while heading towards the body, conveniently claiming to suddenly hear Paul's footsteps some 40 yards away; and that was why he was standing in the middle of the road.

Meanwhile, PC Neil in his testimony claimed to having heard a constable all the way down to Brady Street while examining the murder victim.

[Newbie]

Lech was observed by Paul in the middle of the road. That is the sum total of the case against Lechmere - everything else is smoke and mirrors.

What was he doing there standing in the middle of the road?

[Newbie]

I think it is abundantly clear that Charles Cross was merely a working man who on walking to his place of work happened across a Ripper victim. I dont see anymore to it than that and never have.

So you think that appearing at the inquest, as if he was heading to work is no big deal? You'd think he'd have some pride at a public official gathering.

Explain it?

You think Paul or Lechmere not hearing each other's footsteps on cobbled streets, walking in hobnailed boots, not a big deal?
Lechmere used a sudden realization of hearing Paul, at a short distance, to justify his standing in the middle of the street.

Paul gave an impression of first seeing Lech, not hearing him.

Explain that?

I'd bet my money he was with the body, heard the footsteps, and then came out in the middle of the street..

That he did seem to be a working man going to work is why he was ignored. Serial killers have the habit of appearing normal.
Using an appearance of normalcy is not an argument.