Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[Dickere]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

[Dickere]

Charles Cross was not on the pavement, he was in the middle of the road down from where Mrs Nichols was.

Ok, but do you see my point as a general concept ? Appreciate the correction though.

[Dickere]

Lechemere wasn't the murderer.

Let's pretend he was and why would he do that? If he has literally no time to escape and hears footsteps close by, his best bet would be to 'style it out'. By accosting Paul he controls the situation and comes across as a witness like him. If he allowed Paul to walk off then Paul could easily give a witness statement that would make the police think he was the murderer. It was quick thinking. If he was the murderer.

Which he wasn't.

Paul wouldn't have been able to, or want to, see or identify him though. To me, if he was the killer he'd have let Paul go past then quickly walk in the other direction.

[drstrange169]

Charles Cross was not on the pavement, he was in the middle of the road down from where Mrs Nichols was.

[erobitha]

Lechemere wasn't the murderer.

Let's pretend he was and why would he do that? If he has literally no time to escape and hears footsteps close by, his best bet would be to 'style it out'. By accosting Paul he controls the situation and comes across as a witness like him. If he allowed Paul to walk off then Paul could easily give a witness statement that would make the police think he was the murderer. It was quick thinking. If he was the murderer.

Which he wasn't.

[Dickere]

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 ?