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

[John Wheat]

just various thoughts around this discovery. plenty more of them .
i really would like to know what the police net actually was and consists of in man power and tactics they employed to catch JTR.
i read this in perhaps Sugdens book recently or here in thread, officials disbelief JTR had got through there NET, i presume a spiders web of bobbys at least.

any threads here to send me to !

Fair enough. I think we can only guess at what the police net actually looked like and tactics employed to catch JTR. I'm sure someone on the site will have more of an idea about this sort of thing than I do.

[The Rookie Detective]

Can someone please confirm the most accurate timings possible for the last policeman to have walked past the murder site BEFORE Nichols was killed?

[The Rookie Detective]

I ask because I think there's a tendency to look at things from the wrong perspective.

Let's set aside Paul finding Lechmere standing close to Nichols because that's a fact we already know.

The main focus to either strengthen or negate Lechmere as a suspect is to work out the exact time frame from when the last policeman walked past the murder site up to the point that Lechmere claims to have found the body.

We need the widest parameters of time possible so that we know that a time frame outside of those parameters is impossible.

Let's focus on Lechmere's behaviour.

If he is innocent, then he has no reason to run... He doesn't run.

If he is guilty, then it would initially be fair to say that it doesn't make logical sense why he didn't run?!....BUT, here's the rub...

There's actually a perfect reason why he STILL wouldn't have run when he heard Paul approaching... and that is if he had waited for the last policeman to have walked past the site and then slain Nichols with the knowledge he had a certain time frame before another policeman would pass by...

And so... let's imagine he has waited for the policeman to walk past, slain Nichols, but then as he's in the process of mutilating her, he hears Paul...but he CAN'T run because he knows that a policeman has only passed through minutes before and to run in the same direction that the policeman has traveled coupled with the knowledge that Paul would most likely see the body, he would have been physically trapped between Paul approaching and the policeman who he knew had passed by minutes before.

Adding to that scenario, let's imagine that Lechnere DIDN'T murder Nichols. It would mean the real killer had to of slain Nichols BETWEEN the last policeman leaving the street to the point when he would of heard LECHMERE approaching. (Lechnmere would of heard Paul and so the real killer would of heard Lechmere by the same token)


So the REAL question is... What is the longest possible timeframe BEWTEEN the last Policeman walking past and clearing the street, to the point when the killer had heard Lechmere approaching AND had already left the scene BEFORE Lechmmere arrived? (Lechmere never mentioned seeing anyone else)

I would hypothesize that if the time between the last policeman having cleared the street to the point when the killer had left the scene before Lechmere arrived is less than 5 minutes, then it would make it much less likely that Lechmere was innocent.

I'm on the fence with this one, but what is more plausible?

A) A Policeman passes by the murder site, the unidentified killer arrives with Nichols and he kills her, he hears Lehmere coming and runs, Lechmere arrives and sees the body, Paul arrives and sees Lechmere...

OR...

B) A Policeman passes by the murder site, Lechmere arrives with Nichols, he kills her, he hears Paul but can't run because he knows a Policeman has recently passed by, Paul arrives and sees Lechnmere


Thoughts Please?

If there's time then there's time, but if there isn't the time, then Lechmere looks like a very interesting suspect indeed

[Doctored Whatsit]

I ask because I think there's a tendency to look at things from the wrong perspective.

Let's set aside Paul finding Lechmere standing close to Nichols because that's a fact we already know.

The main focus to either strengthen or negate Lechmere as a suspect is to work out the exact time frame from when the last policeman walked past the murder site up to the point that Lechmere claims to have found the body.

We need the widest parameters of time possible so that we know that a time frame outside of those parameters is impossible.

Let's focus on Lechmere's behaviour.

If he is innocent, then he has no reason to run... He doesn't run.

If he is guilty, then it would initially be fair to say that it doesn't make logical sense why he didn't run?!....BUT, here's the rub...

There's actually a perfect reason why he STILL wouldn't have run when he heard Paul approaching... and that is if he had waited for the last policeman to have walked past the site and then slain Nichols with the knowledge he had a certain time frame before another policeman would pass by...

And so... let's imagine he has waited for the policeman to walk past, slain Nichols, but then as he's in the process of mutilating her, he hears Paul...but he CAN'T run because he knows that a policeman has only passed through minutes before and to run in the same direction that the policeman has traveled coupled with the knowledge that Paul would most likely see the body, he would have been physically trapped between Paul approaching and the policeman who he knew had passed by minutes before.

Adding to that scenario, let's imagine that Lechnere DIDN'T murder Nichols. It would mean the real killer had to of slain Nichols BETWEEN the last policeman leaving the street to the point when he would of heard LECHMERE approaching. (Lechnmere would of heard Paul and so the real killer would of heard Lechmere by the same token)


So the REAL question is... What is the longest possible timeframe BEWTEEN the last Policeman walking past and clearing the street, to the point when the killer had heard Lechmere approaching AND had already left the scene BEFORE Lechmmere arrived? (Lechmere never mentioned seeing anyone else)

I would hypothesize that if the time between the last policeman having cleared the street to the point when the killer had left the scene before Lechmere arrived is less than 5 minutes, then it would make it much less likely that Lechmere was innocent.

I'm on the fence with this one, but what is more plausible?

A) A Policeman passes by the murder site, the unidentified killer arrives with Nichols and he kills her, he hears Lehmere coming and runs, Lechmere arrives and sees the body, Paul arrives and sees Lechmere...

OR...

B) A Policeman passes by the murder site, Lechmere arrives with Nichols, he kills her, he hears Paul but can't run because he knows a Policeman has recently passed by, Paul arrives and sees Lechnmere


Thoughts Please?

If there's time then there's time, but if there isn't the time, then Lechmere looks like a very interesting suspect indeed

PC Neil passed by at about 3. 15 am and saw nothing. None of the street occupants, the night watchmen, a police officer at the station nearby, and the one or two residents who were awake claimed to have heard any sounds. The exception being Harriet Lilley at no. 7 who reported gasps and a moan, the sounds muffled by a passing luggage train. This was timed at appx 3. 30 am. Murder at about 3. 30 am therefore seems the likeliest option, about 10-12 minutes before Lechmere arrived.

[The Rookie Detective]

PC Neil passed by at about 3. 15 am and saw nothing. None of the street occupants, the night watchmen, a police officer at the station nearby, and the one or two residents who were awake claimed to have heard any sounds. The exception being Harriet Lilley at no. 7 who reported gasps and a moan, the sounds muffled by a passing luggage train. This was timed at appx 3. 30 am. Murder at about 3. 30 am therefore seems the likeliest option, about 10-12 minutes before Lechmere arrived.

Your post is brilliant because it brings everything into context.

So based on that data, I am going to hypothesize...


The killer and Nichols arrive at the murder site around 3.20am to 3.25am.

The killer doesn't intend to stay long because the longer he stays, the riskier the chances of getting caught.

The witness Harriet Lilley at no.7 hears the murder taking place, because who else would she have heard around the same time the murder took place?

JTR uses the noise generated by the train to attack Nichols

The gasp comes from the point when he surprises her and grabs her throat and subdues her...By bringing her to the point of near unconsciousness.

And the moaning is possibly her bleeding out from her throat as she tried to raise the alarm


JTR then teases in a later letter when he underlines the word wrong "TRACK"

Did he make his escape over the fence and onto the train line? What's the height/gradient?



But i digress...

So that leave around 10 minutes for the killer to leave the scene BEFORE Lechmere arrives?

For me, the killing doesn't seem finished and it's almost certain that he didn't finish what he wanted to do to Nichols. That may suggest he heard Lechmere approaching and fled?

Why leave early if he's not finished?


The timings here seem to help Lechmere's case for innocence, but something just doesn't ring true.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

Didn't I read somewhere that Bucks Row at that time was (still is) long and narrow with no alleys? I forget who, but a Ripperologist stated that there would be no place for Jack to escape *to* had he been disturbed. Now I want to go back and try to find this citation. If Lechmere didn't disturb the Ripper, he has some explaining to do. Regardless, he is a better candidate than Prince Eddy, Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert, and a whole host of others!

[Wickerman]

Didn't I read somewhere that Bucks Row at that time was (still is) long and narrow with no alleys? I forget who, but a Ripperologist stated that there would be no place for Jack to escape *to* had he been disturbed. Now I want to go back and try to find this citation. If Lechmere didn't disturb the Ripper, he has some explaining to do. Regardless, he is a better candidate than Prince Eddy, Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert, and a whole host of others!

I can't think who would have said that but it isn't true. Cross came from the east end of Bucks Row, if the killer heard his footsteps he would naturally run west a short distance and around the Board School where he had a few choices of streets & alleys. There was a night-watchman on duty in the next street - Winthrop St., and also a horse-slaughterer at work. Neither saw or heard any person pass them at the hour in question.

[Fiver]

Didn't I read somewhere that Bucks Row at that time was (still is) long and narrow with no alleys? I forget who, but a Ripperologist stated that there would be no place for Jack to escape *to* had he been disturbed. Now I want to go back and try to find this citation. If Lechmere didn't disturb the Ripper, he has some explaining to do. Regardless, he is a better candidate than Prince Eddy, Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert, and a whole host of others!

Lechmere certainly is a better candidate than the names you mention, but he is not a good candidate. Chapman was killed after Lechmere would have arrived at work. Killing Stride and Eddowes would have required staying awake 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off. The Ripper took trophy organs, which would have been nigh-impossible to hide in a house full of children.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

Lechmere certainly is a better candidate than the names you mention, but he is not a good candidate. Chapman was killed after Lechmere would have arrived at work. Killing Stride and Eddowes would have required staying awake 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off. The Ripper took trophy organs, which would have been nigh-impossible to hide in a house full of children.

Totally agree. I don't like Lechmere for it, either, but his proximity and sketchy behavior would definitely make me look at him twice. I also ponder WHY this man, hitherto unknown to the police, would suddenly decide upon savage murder whilst going about his day! "Woke up, think I'll kill me some prostitutes. Boy, that feels better! Think I'll stop now and return to the relative obscurity from whence I came!" See what I'm getting at? He certainly COULD have done it, but so could nearly everyone.

[Fiver]

Totally agree. I don't like Lechmere for it, either, but his proximity and sketchy behavior would definitely make me look at him twice.

What part of Lechmere's behavior do you consider sketchy?

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

What part of Lechmere's behavior do you consider sketchy?

In the documentary I saw several years ago when Lechmere was first put out there as a suspect, it was stated that Lechmere gave conflicting information about the order of events and lying about his name. However, he probably used an alias because he didn't want to get involved and I can't really blame him.

[The Rookie Detective]

In the documentary I saw several years ago when Lechmere was first put out there as a suspect, it was stated that Lechmere gave conflicting information about the order of events and lying about his name. However, he probably used an alias because he didn't want to get involved and I can't really blame him.

I think that is a fairly accurate assessment of Lechmere; he didn't want anything to do with it.

This is evidenced by the nature in which he and Robert Paul failed in their moral responsibility to at the very least shout and/or run for a policeman; after Lechmere had found Nichol's body.

Lechmere couldn't have been with Nichols for more than a minute or so before Paul's arrival; unless he chose to just stand in the middle of the road and look over at Nichols for several minutes without approaching her, and chose to wait for Paul to arrive before he ventured nearer to her body.
His behaviour toward Paul is strongly suggestive that he had only arrived there just moments before Paul; because otherwise, his lack of prior movement toward Nichols becomes somewhat suspicious, and of course, if he gets there 5 minutes earlier, then it makes Lechmere the killer.

I don't believe he was the killer, but I still think his and Paul's behavior collectively, was bereft of empathy for Nichols. Human instinct would mean that at least one of them would have acted more spontaneously. I don't believe for a minute that they thought she was alive; because quite frankly, how could they?

I think their lack of immediate reaction to seek help, is suggestive of 2 men who initially were curious, but then upon examining her realized she had been cut/assaulted/murdered etc...and then they were concerned that they would be implicated and agreed to just walk away as a Policeman would no doubt find her at some point.

I think it was pure coincidence that they stumbled on a policeman and told him that he was wanted in Bucks Row.

Whatever the exchange, the Policeman had no suspicion of them because he would have taken them into custody.

The question is; had they have not bumped into a policeman, would either of them gone out of their way to seek one?

I believe the answer is no.

On that basis, I believe they were more concerned about being implicated themselves and in getting to work on time, that they haphazardly mentioned to a policeman en-route that he was needed.
But there's no crime in that and no suspicion of guilt, because while leaving a dead woman who had been murdered in the street may seem crass, it is also not surprising that some men would have behaved like that.
The main reason why I believe that they must have realized she was already dead, is because if they had a shred of belief she was still alive, then they would have told the policeman to get to Bucks Row urgently; because a woman required urgent help.

If they both thought she was dead, then it works in their defense, because I can understand their lack of urgency to some extent.
If either of them thought she was still alive, then both their behaviour and lack of instinctive reaction becomes suspicious

Lechmere and Paul claimed to have briefly assessed her and seemed to be at odds to decipher if they thought she was dead or drunk. Neither of them noticed her throat was cut, nor that blood was still oozing from the large wound in her neck. They also didn't notice her eyes were open; as evidenced by her mortuary photo.

Their lack of urgency to seek assistance for a woman who was clearly in need of help; is for me the most suspicious thing about Lechmere, but also Paul in equal measure.

If someone finds a person lying on the street, they are more likely to seek help immediately, than if someone finds a dead body.

The combination of reaction and urgency are automated inherent human instincts, and so I believe the reason why they didn't run and shout for help, is because they realized there was nothing more that could be done for the woman; because she was already dead.

The trouble is that they blur the lines by stating they were not sure if she was dead. This doesn't make sense because they would have shouted for help or run for a policeman if she still alive.


RD

[Fiver]

In the documentary I saw several years ago when Lechmere was first put out there as a suspect, it was stated that Lechmere gave conflicting information about the order of events and lying about his name. However, he probably used an alias because he didn't want to get involved and I can't really blame him.

The "documentary" is full of false statements and opinion masquerading as fact.

Lechmere did not give conflicting information about anything. His time estimate is supported by the times given by PC Neil, PC Mizen, and PC Thain. His actions, from the moment Robert Paul first spotted him standing in the middle of the street until they parted company near Spitalfields Market, are confirmed by Robert Paul. Lechmere did contradict PC Mizen about what was said and what Mizen did, but Lechmere's account is supported by Robert Paul.

At the Inquest, Lechmere identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 20 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords for a couple decades and whose shift started at 4am at the Broad Street Station. His first stepfather had been named Cross, and while the majority of documents call him Charles Lechmere, there are a couple that call him Charles Cross.

[Fiver]

Their lack of urgency to seek assistance for a woman who was clearly in need of help; is for me the most suspicious thing about Lechmere, but also Paul in equal measure.

If someone finds a person lying on the street, they are more likely to seek help immediately, than if someone finds a dead body.

Lechmere and Paul did seek help immediately, it just didn't involve running or screaming. The same is true for most of the people who first found victims. PC Neil only knew that Nichols was dead because he could see the throat wound with his lantern.

[The Rookie Detective]

Lechmere and Paul did seek help immediately, it just didn't involve running or screaming. The same is true for most of the people who first found victims. PC Neil only knew that Nichols was dead because he could see the throat wound with his lantern.

What was the approximate time frame between Lechmere initially finding the body to both of them walking and bumping into PC Mizen and telling him he was needed in Bucks Row?

It's not just the timing, it's the urgency and how the message was relayed to the Policeman.


The policeman's reaction tells us that either he wasn't bothered to do his duty, didn't take the men seriously, or they didn't relay the message with any sense of urgency.

Unless we choose to scrutinize Mizen; then what else would explain his own lack of urgency to get to the crime scene?


Forget about screaming; they didn't even call for help.

The typical reaction would have been for at least one of them to shout for help; if that is, Nichols was still alive.

They both took the time to examine her, look for signs of life etc...but they didn't call for help.

Why was that?

It speaks of 2 men who were more interested in getting to work and not getting involved, than of men who found a woman who clearly needed help (unless she was dead)

When you combine Lechmere and Paul's lack of

Calling out for help
One of them running to get a policeman while the other stayed with the body
Relaying to Mizen the seriousness of the situation...

the only way to excuse them is if they thought she was dead and they just wanted to not be involved.
That would then in turn explain Lechmere's slight delay in coming forward compared to Paul.

They can both be excused for encountering a dead or dying unfortunate who would have smelt of alcohol (based on her being drunk shortly beforehand), and then just deciding to walk away quietly and let it be someone else's problem. They just happened to encounter Mizen, who judging by his actions, based his reactions on the message he was given.

I don't believe Lechmere killed her, but I believe that there's a reason why it was initially reported that a policeman was the first to discover the body.
Lechmere's hand was forced and he had no choice to come forward.
His giving the name of Cross isn't suspicious, it's a way of again, trying to not be involved.

He and Paul had other priorities and that's okay.

Of course, that is based on Nichols already being dead, because if they thought she was alive, then EITHER calling for help, running for help or relaying the message to Mizen with a sense of utmost urgency would have been enough to vindicate both of them entirely.

Lechmere has been suspected for the wrong reasons. He was indifferent and somewhat cowardly in his reactions.
Paul couldn't wait to have his 15 minutes of fame in the spotlight.

That doesn't make them guilty; but is more a critique of their characters.

Lechmere has become a suspect because he failed to act accordingly and appropriately, and Paul is just as guilty of that behaviour. What saves Paul is that Lechmere was there first.

The fact he was seen standing in the middle of the road when Paul saw him, means he was just in the process of crossing the road at the time; hence why he only got there just before Paul. He went to Cross the road because he was drawn to the body to investigate. had he already been kneeling over the body when Paul arrived, it may be a little harder to explain.


The person who found Kelly sought help immediately and urgently
The person who found Stride did the same
The Policeman who found Eddowes did the same.
Chapman is arguable
Mckenzie was the same
Coles was found as the killer ran off

Nichols (and possibly Chapman) is the odd one out

The reason why Lechmere and Paul chose to state they weren't sure if she was dead, is because it was the only way to cover their lack of urgency to get help.


Of course, Mizen could be as equally guilty, but cna he be blamed for 2 men halfheartedly telling him he was needed, with NO mention of a woman being hurt, dying, dead etc... Their words alone suggest that they just wanted to get away and get to work because it was just too much of a hassle to get involved with a dead prostitute.


RD