Evidence of innocence

[FISHY1118]

Unsafe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, ''UNSAFE'' i dont think so , their either lying or wrong if your[''firm belief'' ] time of chapmans death is correct . Again which one do you think ?

[JeffHamm]

Hi SuperShodan,

Hi rj

...
My hypothesis is that Lechmere was a blitz killer who didn’t plan ahead or put much thought into it. If somebody was in the wrong place at the wrong time he would attack. I suspect most victims were killed very close to where he met them, and that each murder was over incredibly quickly. Just my opinion, I’m happy to be corrected or hear other theories.
...

I can see how that idea could fit Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes. However, I don't think I could accept that explanation for Chapman or Kelly. I can't see Cross/Lechmere to just happen across Annie in the backyard of #29, nor just happening to come across Kelly in her room (and Kelly, dressed only in her chemise, does not appear to have been outside immediately prior to her attack).

Some also include Martha Tabram as well, and again, her location is not one that fits a "blitz attacker", but indicates a "punter poser". I'm not sure your views on Tabram, though, so I'll generally not mention this case again.

Those two cases seem far more consistent with their killer accompanying them to the locations in which they were found. In Kelly's case, it is suggested she had been laying close to the wall, which given the size of the bed, would be consistent with someone else having been in bed with her. Again, similar to the idea that Annie took her killer to the crime scene with her killer posing as a customer, etc.

And that explanation is has no problem problem explaining the Eddowes or Nichols case. In the Eddowes case there is also the Lawende statements, which if a true sighting of Eddowes, leans away from the blitz attacker.

The Stride case, though, particularly if one accepts the Schwartz account of her being suddenly attacked, and if one believes that "broad shoulders" goes on to kill her then and there, would be consistent with what you describe.

I think that leaves us with
2 cases that point towards customer (Chapman and Kelly)
1 case that points towards blitz attacker (Stride; provided Schwartz attack is start of her murder)
2 cases that could fit either (Nichols and Eddowes; provided Lawende et al did not actually see Eddowes).

Now, if we think the same person is responsible for all of these, then it looks like JtR will pose as a customer (Chapman & Kelly, possibly Eddowes) but may also at times engage in blitz attacks (Stride).

And if you include Tabram, then we have 3 clear "punter poser" attacks, 2 more that are not inconsistent with "punter poser" nor with "blitz attack" (Nichols and Eddowes), and one that appears to be a blitz attack (Stride). I'll score these as either 1-0, 0.5-0.5, or 0-1, with the first number being for blitz attack, and the second for punter posers.

So we have:
Blitz - PP
-----------------------
Nichols 0.5 - 0.5
Chapman 0 - 1
Stride 1 - 0
Eddowes 0.5 - 0.5
Kelly 0 - 1
------------------------
sub-totals: 2 - 3
Tabram 0 - 1
------------------------
totals 2 - 4

So, while I would see these as a group leaning more in favour of the Punter Poser (with only Stride standing out as appearing inconsistent with that type of approach), given we have a few cases where we have insufficient evidence, I think undetermined, or "mixed" would be the conclusion (which is basically just saying we don't have enough information to make a firm call that JtR has a clear and consistent "style" in his obtainment of a victim ).

So if your hypothesis is that Cross/Lechmere is a blitz attack JtR, I think the Kelly and Chapman (and Tabram if you include her) cases indicate something is wrong what that hypothesis, namely that JtR was not solely, or primarily, a bitz attacker, and was also frequently a "punter poser". Also, it is the punter-poser explanation that fits with all but the Stride case, which would justify an argument that maybe P.P. is by far the more likely case in those more indeterminate cases (like Nichols and Eddowes). However, given how small our data set is (5 or 6 cases), and given 2 of those are "undetermined", I don't think it would be wise to go too hard on this, so it's probably wisest to consider JtR as "mixed". But if JtR has to be a blitz attacker in order to argue for Cross/Lechmere, then I think the finding that JtR is mixed, leaning towards P.P., goes against Cross/Lechmere's candidacy. However, if Cross/Lechmere still remains a candidate even if JtR can be mixed, or even a P.P., then I would suggest going with "mixed" would be more defendable.

Oh, by the way, I know that in the Stride case some have suggested that B.S. was a punter that Stride may have given the slip to, and he's out looking for her, but as that is just a hypothesis, not evidence, for our purposes here I've classified her as a 1-0 (blitz attack). Also, I know there are a lot who suggest that B.S. leaves the scene, and another person comes along, consoles her, then kills here (which is a P.P. explanation). I've only gone with things that are recorded in evidence (we know Schwartz gave a statement to the police, and I'm including that as "recorded in evidence"; if we go only with inquest statements, where Schwartz doesn't appear, Stride would be another 0.5 - 0.5).

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>I am clearly not talking about Winthrop Street.<<

"...she couldn’t use a main thoroughfare like Whitechapel High Street so she was taking a chance on the next street up." SuperShodan post #4237

The next street up from Whitechapel was Winthorp, if you didn't mean it, why not simply say "sorry my mistake, I meant Buck's Row", instead of throwing out insults?

But, more to the point, why talk about this at all, rather than address the more important flaws in your argument, like Warren's orders to leave the women alone and the major problem with your assertion, "there were of course a few night shift workers around" and the fact that it directly contradicts what you've written elsewhere?


>>Once again we have the Dusty technique of asking and answering his own questions<<

It seems I have to answer my own questions as you and Christer constantly refuse to.

Why is that?

Why pick this topic to answer and ignore the myriad of other more important questions raised? The list is getting longer and longer, yet you only respond to trivia like this, so how about it, give us some serious answers and start responding with apologies for you mistakes instead of insults? Do you need me to ask the questions again?

[GUT]

Trevor, ''UNSAFE'' i dont think so , their either lying or wrong if your[''firm belief'' ] time of chapmans death is correct . Again which one do you think ?

But it]f they are lying or wrong, they are unsafe.

[FISHY1118]

But it]f they are lying or wrong, they are unsafe.

''
One might say that its 'unsafe' because there were either lying or wrong . There has to be a reason for it being ''unsafe''

[Abby Normal]

All the timings you need to know
3:15 no one in bucks row according to pc Neil
3:45 lech is in bucks row standing next to pollys freshly killed body.
de facto prima facie suspect. end of.

but please, carry on with another hundred pages of phantom rippers and mindless minutes

[drstrange169]

>>3:45 lech is in bucks row standing next to pollys freshly killed body.<<

Except a policeman says he wasn't and he wasn't standing next to a body, freshly killed or not.

And yet again, if Paul WAS correct, and Mizen wrong, Lechmere is innocent because Paul says Mrs Nichols was dead before Lechmere left home, why is that bit ALWAYS edited out?.

It's a lose, lose for the case against Lechmere.

>>but please, carry on with another hundred pages of phantom rippers and mindless minutes<<

but please, carry on with another hundred pages of phantom claims and mindless minutes.

It doesn't matter how long people keep repeating mis-information, it still will not make it correct, or Lechmere guilty.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, ''UNSAFE'' i dont think so , their either lying or wrong if your[''firm belief'' ] time of chapmans death is correct . Again which one do you think ?

I think Mrs Long identification is unsafe because of what she says "I am "sure" the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased" that is not a positive identification.If she is not sure, then how can she also be "so sure" that the body she viewed at the mortuary were one and the same!!!!!!!

So that clearly makes her ID unsafe and casts a major doubt surrounding the actual time of death, and her testimony also conflicts with Cadosh who heard a bang which could have emenated from anywhere in close proximity and not necessarily from the fence of 29.

As to Richardson, he either didnt see the body, or he saw the body and thought that it was someoone sleeping rough and chose to do no more. that sugegstion is supported by his witness testimony when questioned by the coroner

[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.

Those supporting a later time of death in line with Long and Cadosh should really take a reality check because the evidence of Long,Richardson and Cadosh is UNSAFE and the doctors guessed time of death is far more reliable

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[SuperShodan]

>>I am clearly not talking about Winthrop Street.<<

"...she couldn’t use a main thoroughfare like Whitechapel High Street so she was taking a chance on the next street up." SuperShodan post #4237

The next street up from Whitechapel was Winthorp, if you didn't mean it, why not simply say "sorry my mistake, I meant Buck's Row", instead of throwing out insults?

But, more to the point, why talk about this at all, rather than address the more important flaws in your argument, like Warren's orders to leave the women alone and the major problem with your assertion, "there were of course a few night shift workers around" and the fact that it directly contradicts what you've written elsewhere?


>>Once again we have the Dusty technique of asking and answering his own questions<<

It seems I have to answer my own questions as you and Christer constantly refuse to.

Why is that?

Why pick this topic to answer and ignore the myriad of other more important questions raised? The list is getting longer and longer, yet you only respond to trivia like this, so how about it, give us some serious answers and start responding with apologies for you mistakes instead of insults? Do you need me to ask the questions again?

It’s easy to criticise. Anyone can do that. All you ever do is respond to others posts with information overload without ever comprehending or understanding. All you ever do is react to others idea’s, never once offering your own thoughts or contributing to the debate in any meaningful way. It’s actually impossible to debate with you as you never offer any suggestions or ideas of your own. Its constantly criticising others, and often without an awareness of what’s actually been said.

You don’t seem to be able to analyse or conceptualise. A post about prostitutes avoiding the Main Street and you reply with police guidance. Totally missing the overall point about why Nichols might be in Bucks Row. I mention the next street up from Whitechapel Road and you take the literal view it’s Winthrop Street, not comprehending the conversation is about her presence in Bucks Row.

Your posts are very odd. It’s like you are autistic. Typically replying with information overload and never once moving the debate forward, being proactive or making a positive contribution of your own. Every post is a reply or critique of somebody’s original, and never once in thousands of posts ever being original yourself.

[Dickere]

Nope. He wiped them off on Robert Paul's shoulder.

Humorous as this sounds (and probably is), if Lechmere was the killer, transferring blood onto Paul is a clever idea. He'd then deny touching Paul of course and nobody could prove otherwise. It would certainly raise a clear doubt as to who did what.

[Fisherman]

Just checking in, only to find that the discussion has tilted towards other issues than merely the timings.

Interesting views have been put forward, like for example how the Lechmere theory is flawed on account of how a killer who had cuttnig bellies and eviscerating people out on the open streets would never risk bluffing it out on account of how he may possibly have had an undefined amount of blood on his hands.

The suggestion is seemingly that the thought process would be along the lines of: Oopla, here comes somebody down the street in which I am in the process of cutting this woman up. Let´s see now, if I run, the oncomer may hear me, so let´s instead bluff him or her when he or she comes up to me. But wait? What if I have received a speck or two of blood on my hands in the process of cutting her up? If I have, and if the oncomer asks to see my hands, then what should I do? Then again, how many nightly creatures walking the streets ask to look at other peoples hands? But hey, wait? What if the incomer suggests that the police needs to get involved? Dear me, I´m off!!"

Somewhere along the reasoning, it seems the rather obvious thing that the killer is a risk taker has gone lost. Together with a few other bits and bobs.

Anyway, we - of course - also have the old outraging inclusion of a portrayal of Charles Lechmere crouching by the body of Polly Nichols in Bucks Row represented in the discussion, reminiscent of the Rippercast in which Steve Blomer once commented on the matter with the words "It is just not true!" in a high pitched voice.

The gist of the whole atter is of course that claiming that it is not true is denying the possibility that Lechmere was the killer. Maybe a selected few could have missed the point that the documentary makes tha case of Lechmere as the likely killer, I don´t know. But those who understand that this was what the docu was about should be aware that Lechmere crouching by the body is EITHER true or untrue. If he was the killer, then he MUST have crouched by the body, and since the docu makes the case that he WAS the killer, it also makes the case that he woud have crouched by the body while cutting it.

Yes, representing this in pictures has a strong presuasive quality, but what would the alternative be? To picture Lechmere first stopping, then getting out into the middle of the street and staying there all the time as Paul approached, never getting anywhere close to the body? The simpe fact is that such a representation would disenable for Lechmere to have been the killer, and so it would be a very stupid thing to do on account of the documakers, in direct contradiction with the message they were delivering.

This is the kind of "thinking" that does the naysayer side no services at all. But it seems they cannot understand it themselves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

However much blood the killer might or might not have got on his hands Fish we surely at least have to accept the very real possibility (even probability) that the killer would have had some blood on his hands plus a bloodied knife. When he heard Paul approaching he had the opportunity to walk away into the darkness. By the time that Paul arrived at the body, checked and found that she was dead, perhaps 30, 40 or 50 seconds would have passed by which time the killer would have left Bucks Row. Anyone that he ‘might’ have bumped into wouldn’t have known about the murder and would have paid little attention to him especially in the poorly lit streets. And how many people who decide to chase after a knife-wielding killer?

Yes ther are always risks but taking flight was a massively less risky option for the killer. By waiting for Paul to arrive Lechmere couldn’t have failed to realise that getting a Constable would have been suggested. This would have meant first walking past street lamps with the chance of Paul spotting blood plus the added risk of close questioning by a Constable with a request to “turn out your pockets.’

Of course there were massive risks involved in killing a woman in the streets but the killer killed because he was compelled to do so and would probably have intended to continue doing so (as he did) To do this, very obviously, he needed to remain at liberty. So why the absolutely needless risk when a far lower risk option was available. And let’s face it, this wasn’t a complex decision.

[SuperShodan]

I think people assume an element of forward planning in Bucks Row and I don’t think there was. Lechmere took a big chance in Bucks Row, it’s not a great place for a murder. Somebody turns the corner from the Brady Street entrance, or walks round the corner from the Board School, and you’re caught. And that’s exactly what happened.

The last thing Lechmere expected was that a witness would turn the corner, and the last thing he expected was that a few minutes later he would end up in front of a policeman.

Once Paul arrives it’s all gone horribly wrong and Lechmere has completely lost control of the situation.

People say it’s crazy to interact with a witness with blood on your hands, it’s suicidal to chat to a policeman after committing a murder, perhaps with the murder weapon in your pocket. The point is Lechmere had zero choice in any of this. He was a murderer on survival mode. He had avoided being caught by seconds. Everything that follows is him reacting to the unfolding situation. He had little room for manoeuvre and few options.

Interacting with Paul is a huge risk, fetching a policeman and talking to Mizen an obstacle he had to negotiate his way past. However, in each case Lechmere had zero choice.

So having blood on his hands, if indeed he did, was just one more problem he had to deal with. And for all we know he simply wiped his hands on his apron.

[Fisherman]

The one post I will specifically answer is - of course - Franks post, not least since it concerns itself with the issue of the timings. Here we go, excerpts from my earlier post in red:

You’re hard to follow sometimes, Christer. One moment you’re serving me needlessly splitting hairs accompanied by a spoonful of condescension and the next you say you wave respect in my direction. After your last post (#4098), I really didn’t feel like replying to any of your posts any longer, so this may be well the last one.

There is also another consideration to be made. The 3.45 timing given by the three PC:s cannot be fixed. It is left floating. The claim on Pauls behalf that the body was found at circa 3.45 CAN be fixed, however, by the testimony of Thain and Llewellyn. Ergo, the coroner could not have been speaking of the three PC:s timing as the one that was "fixed by many independent data". There is absolutely no data fixing this time, instead there are many data gainsaying it. The only infornmation gainsaying Robert Pauls suggestion is the timings of the three PC:s, and that is a timing that cannot be anchored in any other existing information.

OK, let’s see where Paul’s 3:45 leads us, and, in order to do so, let’s assume for a moment that Lechmere was innocent and that:

Okay, Frank. I will here insert,in blue, the timings produced if we work from either a 3.40 or a 3.45 finding of the body by Lechmere:

• he found the body at 0:00 (3.40 - 3.45)
• Paul laid eyes on Nichols’s body for the first time at 0:45 (3.40.45 - 3.45.45)
• the carmen left the body at 1:30 (3.41.30 - 3.46.30)
• they met with Mizen at 4:45 (3.44.45 - 3.49.45)
• Mizen arrived at the crime spot at 8:45 (3.48.45 - 3.53.45)

Lets note here, to begin with, that if we use the early scenario, then Jonas Mizen arrived at the murder site 6.15 to 11.15 minutes BEFORE Rees Ralph LLewellyn was called on by Thain.

Neil, who was, presumably, in the part of Thomas Street north of Buck’s Row or in Queen Ann Street when the carmen passed Buck’s Row and they would have at least been past the bend in the northern part of Buck’s Row just west of Thomas Street when Neil entered Buck’s Row. That way, they wouldn’t have seen each other. At that point, they would have covered some 170 meters since leaving the crime spot. Walking at a speed of 6 km per hour, they would have arrived at that point at 3:12. (3.43.12 - 3.48.12)

Let’s say that Neil at that same moment (at 3:12) entered Buck’s Row from Thomas Street. If so, he would have had to cover some 130 meters to arrive at the crime spot. Walking at a speed of 2.5 mph or 4 km per hour, it would have taken him 118 seconds to cover this distance, so let’s say 2 minutes. The time would then be at 5:12. (3.45.12 - 3.50.12).

So, now let’s put Neil’s arrival in the right place and then insert Paul’s timing into this. We then get this:

1. Lechmere found the body at 3:44:25
2. Paul laid eyes on Nichols’s body for the first time at 3.45:00
3. the carmen left the body at 3.45:45
4. they met with Mizen at 3.49:00
5. Neil saw the body at 3.49:37
6. Thain arrived at the crime scene at 3:51:19
7. Thain leaves for the doctor at 3:51:30
8. Mizen arrived at the crime spot at 3.53:00

I’ve inserted Thain’s arrival in the middle between numbers 5 and 8, which would be at about 1:42 from both 3:49:37 and 3:53:00.

Then, Llewellyn’s residence was about 240 meters from the crime spot, so running at a speed of 10.8 km per hour (which is a jogging speed, not dashing), Thain would have reached Llewellyn’s in 80 seconds at 3:52:50. If he would have “jogged” at an even slower speed of 7.2 km per hour, the trip would have taken 2 minutes, so he would have reached the doctor’s at 3:53:30.

Note that numbers 2, 4 and 8 are more or less fixed by Paul’s testimony that it didn’t take longer than 4 between seeing the woman for the first time and meeting up with Mizen. And we also have to remember that Mizen didn’t state seeing Thain when he arrived at the crime spot, which means that Thain at the latest leaves at 3:52 for the doctor, or 3:52:30 if we think that Thain left for the doctor running at a speed of 14.4 km per hour (or 8.95 miles per hour). Adding 2 minutes at most for the trip to Llewelyn’s would have him arrive there at 3:54:20.

This would fit with Llewellyn’s first timing of “about five minutes to four”, but not with his subsequent timing of “about 4 o’clock (or with a timing in the middle like 3.57-3.58 ). Just as Llewellyn's "about 4 o'clock" timing doesn't fit with Neil's statement that the doctor arrived after about 10 minutes, which would make it about 4 o'clock, not somewhere between 4:05 & 4:10).

Sometimes simple explanations offer themselves up readily, don´t they?

The simple explanation I see itself offered is that not 3 but only 2 men were off: Paul & Llewellyn, especially given the fact that Llewellyn doesn’t particularly give the impression of having actually consulted a time piece at any point between waking up and arriving at the crime scene, or else he would have given that time and at what point during that interval he saw it.

I would advice against claiming to know what people would or would. not have done, Frank. We cannot tell. But yes, if your scenario was to be correct, then Robert Paul and Dr Llewellyn alike would both have to be wrong about the timings. And not only that, they would be off in the exact same manner, if LLewellyns original 3.55 timing was the correct one. Pauls clock would have been five minutes ahead of time and LLewellyns clock would ALSO have been five minutes ahead of time. And that suggestion does not sit at all well with me for the simple reason that it would be too handy a coincidence.

Since the Times report does not say in any way that Neil was the man who found the body at 3.45, the rest of the press coverage clinches the deal - it was Lechmere who did, and at least two papers make that exact claim. What the Times says in it´s ending sentences is this:

"The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen."

This does not in any way conclude that Neil was the 3.45 finder. What it does is instead to explain how Neil could be in place at the site when Mizen arrived - because he had come across the body "within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen". Meaning that he was there AFTER the finding, not that he WAS the 3.45 finder.

What you don’t seem to take into account here is the fact that all the reporters heard Baxter say the very same thing and seeing that “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data" was carried by at least 5 different newspaper versions and the “In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen" was only reported by the Times, it seems plausible that the latter quote was simply the way in which the Times reporter ‘translated’ the first quote.

Yes, just as you say, the absolute bulk of the papers did NOT involve the part that was added in the Times. And as I have shown, they described the time at which Lechmere was there in details given both BEFORE and AFTER the sentence “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data". Therefore, the impression is given that the time refers to the carmans finding of the body and nothing else. I will now post the version from the Daily News, and we will look at who is referred to and who is not:

"She was first discovered by a carman named Cross on his way to his work. Paul, another carman, came up, and together they went to the woman. She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Cross says her hand was cold, but her face was warm. Neither appears to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. (So far, neither you nor me is going to dispute how the text so far has made no reference to anybdoy else than Lechmere and Paul and the true finding of the body) Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. (Here, we have Neil mentioned, and we have it said that Neil got to the body after the carmen had left in search of a policeman)The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. (Here is the matter of contention - does the the finding of the body refer to Lechmere´s finding or to Neils "finding"?) The condition of the body appears to prove conclusively that deceased was killed on the spot where she was found. She met her death without a cry of any kind. Many people were within a short distance, but heard not a sound." (Here, the matter is cleared up; the paper is STILL referring to the INITIAL finding. We can know this since there would be no interest in telling the readers that there was not a sound giving away the murder as Neil arrived - but there WOULD be a huge interest attaching to how the description is about Lechmeres finding the body!)

Aswecan see, the Daily News carries the part of the same text that the Times presented in a more full version, but with the same intent: Yo point out that Lechmee and Neil could not have been more than minutes part. Here is the Times version again:

"The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen."

As we can see, what the paper says is nothing but how Neil actually got to the body before Mizen had the time to, proving that the distance in time between Lechmere and Neil was but a small one.

If that’s correct, then the 3.45 in that first quote remains a reference to when Neil, “in the meantime”, came upon the body.

As you can see, there is ample enough reason to show us that your version. is not the correct one. Furthermore, what we also can see is that there is a perfectly logical alternative explanation to the wording in the Times. So it boils down to either accepting that the bulk of the papers suggested Lechmere as the 3.45 finder (the clearest example may be the Morning Advertiser, that does not even mention Neil in their version) whereas the Times took the stance that Neil was. And Baxter used a wording that described Neils appearance on the scene, six minutes or so after the body was found, as the finding of the body, although he had in a context involving describing Lechmeres and Pauls actions named the carman as the finder.

Or they all were very certain that Lechmere was the 3.45 finder, and the Times wording was only intended to point to the slam time gap between Lechmere and Neil. And Baxters words about how the body was found at 3.45 describes when the body was actually found, and not when Neil arrived by the body.

In my world, this is an absolute no-contest. At any rate, I hope you can see the very simple logic in what I suggest.

All the best Christer,
Frank

The same to you, Frank!

[Fisherman]

However much blood the killer might or might not have got on his hands Fish we surely at least have to accept the very real possibility (even probability) that the killer would have had some blood on his hands plus a bloodied knife. When he heard Paul approaching he had the opportunity to walk away into the darkness. By the time that Paul arrived at the body, checked and found that she was dead, perhaps 30, 40 or 50 seconds would have passed by which time the killer would have left Bucks Row. Anyone that he ‘might’ have bumped into wouldn’t have known about the murder and would have paid little attention to him especially in the poorly lit streets. And how many people who decide to chase after a knife-wielding killer?

Yes ther are always risks but taking flight was a massively less risky option for the killer. By waiting for Paul to arrive Lechmere couldn’t have failed to realise that getting a Constable would have been suggested. This would have meant first walking past street lamps with the chance of Paul spotting blood plus the added risk of close questioning by a Constable with a request to “turn out your pockets.’

Of course there were massive risks involved in killing a woman in the streets but the killer killed because he was compelled to do so and would probably have intended to continue doing so (as he did) To do this, very obviously, he needed to remain at liberty. So why the absolutely needless risk when a far lower risk option was available. And let’s face it, this wasn’t a complex decision.

Not killing at all is even less risky, Herlock. Why do that in the first place?