Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Dickere View Post

    You'd assume they were likely to be wearing 'hobnail boots' and walking on cobbles, so it's hard to believe they were walking anything like close together. Paul has no reason to lie, so it suggests that Lechmere was lying i.e. he had been there for rather longer and wasn't walking. Hmmm...
    Yes, that's the bit, or one of them, that Fisherman finds suspicious, and I agree with him.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • Dickere
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    According to Lechmere, Paul was right behind him when he discovered the body, but Paul didn't see or hear Lechmere.

    Cheers, George
    You'd assume they were likely to be wearing 'hobnail boots' and walking on cobbles, so it's hard to believe they were walking anything like close together. Paul has no reason to lie, so it suggests that Lechmere was lying i.e. he had been there for rather longer and wasn't walking. Hmmm...

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    But if the two men always walked in the same direction, with one following the other, they wouldn't have been face to face before, or necessarily familiar by their back view, just by walking gait, clothing or general physique. I doubt they'd have noticed each other unless one was regularly only a few seconds ahead or behind the other.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    According to Lechmere, Paul was right behind him when he discovered the body, but Paul didn't see or hear Lechmere.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    But if the two men always walked in the same direction, with one following the other, they wouldn't have been face to face before, or necessarily familiar by their back view, just by walking gait, clothing or general physique. I doubt they'd have noticed each other unless one was regularly only a few seconds ahead or behind the other.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Dickere
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
    Suppose he was the murderer. He had been walking down this street to work for four months. He would have been well aware that there were 3 beat cops in this area. If he just stands there hoping Paul will pass he runs the risk of Paul noticing the body and yelling murder. Same thing if he walks off in either direction and Paul raises an alarm. A cop could appear suddenly at either end of the street.
    What puzzles me is how these two guys don't know each other. They walk down the same street at similar times for four months, and both their routes went past the brightly lit Albion Brewery. Shouldn't they at some stage have noticed each other? Paul said he was scared because the area had a rough reputation. Wouldn't it make sense to walk together for mutual protection?

    Cheers, George
    Hi George

    I see your points. To me though, it sounds as if Paul was actively trying to avoid involvement, if only for his own protection, so Lechmere involving him feels like the riskier option - if he had just killed her that is. Maybe that leans towards his innocence.

    Though with this killing and others, a knowledge of police beats and timings feels likely so that could explain why Lechmere knew he was relatively safe if he was the killer.

    Good point about them not knowing each other whatsoever though, if the scenario you offer is the case and I'm not suggesting it isn't, you would expect some passing recognition at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Suppose he was the murderer. He had been walking down this street to work for four months. He would have been well aware that there were 3 beat cops in this area. If he just stands there hoping Paul will pass he runs the risk of Paul noticing the body and yelling murder. Same thing if he walks off in either direction and Paul raises an alarm. A cop could appear suddenly at either end of the street.
    What puzzles me is how these two guys don't know each other. They walk down the same street at similar times for four months, and both their routes went past the brightly lit Albion Brewery. Shouldn't they at some stage have noticed each other? Paul said he was scared because the area had a rough reputation. Wouldn't it make sense to walk together for mutual protection?

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Dickere View Post

    To be fair, it was if he was the murderer he was likely to be a psychopath. That would apply to whoever JtR was though.
    Correct

    Leave a comment:


  • Dickere
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    I’m pretty sure I qualified maybe five times that Lechmere didn’t kill Nichols. Ergo….

    I was simply saying if he was a psychopath this is more likely how a psychopath would behave.
    To be fair, it was if he was the murderer he was likely to be a psychopath. That would apply to whoever JtR was though.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post

    And the evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath is ????
    I’m pretty sure I qualified maybe five times that Lechmere didn’t kill Nichols. Ergo….

    I was simply saying if he was a psychopath this is more likely how a psychopath would behave.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    I have to keep qualifying that I don’t believe Lechmere was the murderer, but if he was he would most likely be a psychopath.

    A psychopath would not run when caught in the act like that. They are not manic. With a policeman, many in that situation would almost give themselves up. It is the end of the game. Many can’t wait to start revelling in the glory of their ‘accomplishments’.

    With a member of the public there would be no need to kill them if they did not see anything or threatened to report that they did. If Lechmere was the killer he would have been quickly convinced that Paul saw nothing and now fooling him becomes part of the fun. He even acquires an alibi. Adds to the egotism that you are smarter than everyone else.

    Lechmere didn’t murder Nichols.
    And the evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath is ????

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Dickere View Post

    Thanks

    We'll never know but still. You could be right, though wouldn't he have heard Paul coming from some distance ? If he was the killer to my mind he'd either have run off first or kept his head down if Paul was trying to avoid him.
    I have to keep qualifying that I don’t believe Lechmere was the murderer, but if he was he would most likely be a psychopath.

    A psychopath would not run when caught in the act like that. They are not manic. With a policeman, many in that situation would almost give themselves up. It is the end of the game. Many can’t wait to start revelling in the glory of their ‘accomplishments’.

    With a member of the public there would be no need to kill them if they did not see anything or threatened to report that they did. If Lechmere was the killer he would have been quickly convinced that Paul saw nothing and now fooling him becomes part of the fun. He even acquires an alibi. Adds to the egotism that you are smarter than everyone else.

    Lechmere didn’t murder Nichols.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dickere
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi dickere (interesting name)
    yes. one would think he would let him pass if he was the murderer, or even take off before he got that close. but if he was the killer perhaps he was surprised by pauls appearance and decided to stay put and engage him to see how much did he see.
    Thanks

    We'll never know but still. You could be right, though wouldn't he have heard Paul coming from some distance ? If he was the killer to my mind he'd either have run off first or kept his head down if Paul was trying to avoid him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Dickere View Post
    A question I've not seen considered. Paul was actively giving Lechmere and Mary a wide berth as he said he was worried about being accosted by a gang. So they're on the pavement and he's either in the road or on the other pavement trying to keep his distance and get past them. If Lechmere was the killer wouldn't he have just kept quiet and allowed Paul carry on his way ? Calling out to him suggests he wanted unnecessary involvement which suggests he wasn't the killer to me. Otherwise he'd have let Paul pass without arousing any attention. Or am I missing something ?
    hi dickere (interesting name)
    yes. one would think he would let him pass if he was the murderer, or even take off before he got that close. but if he was the killer perhaps he was surprised by pauls appearance and decided to stay put and engage him to see how much did he see.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Dickere View Post

    If Lechmere was a psychopath, he'd get Paul involved only to kill him too though I'd have thought.
    Where is the fun in that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dickere
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    Hi Dickere,

    How people interpret Cross/Lechmere's actions depends upon whether or not they think he's Mary's killer. If he's not, his actions are seen as someone who's come across a woman laying in the street, and so he asks Paul for assistance to determine what should be done. If he is, it becomes more complicated. As you point out, letting Paul avoid him, and pass by without getting a look at Mary, seems the most logical. However, for those who argue that Cross/Lechmere is her killer, his involving Paul is used to argue that Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath, and he's decided to bluff his way through rather than flee when Paul approaches in the first place. Cross/Lechmere is often portrayed in this scenario as being cool in the moment, and he is so confident in his abilities to talk his way out of the situation, that involving Paul comes across as him just getting a further thrill out of his murderous actions.

    It becomes circular, though. To explain his calling over of Paul one hypothesizes Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath, and then, to justify calling him a psychopath one points to him calling over Paul! Innocence, being the default state, is just looked at from the point of view of "is this behaviour inconsistent with innocence", which it is not. Hence, it is not evidence of innocence per se, but it is just behaviour that doesn't raise suspicion.

    - Jeff
    Well presented and thanks Jeff.

    If Lechmere was a psychopath, he'd get Paul involved only to kill him too though I'd have thought.

    I'm not saying he isn't suspicious but to me the behaviour of getting Paul involved lessens the suspicion. Though if he hadn't we'd probably not be aware of him at all of course.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X