Lucky Lechmere List

[FrankO]

Hi all,

Can any one or more of you fit any or all the points raised on the last two pages in a ‘stroke-of-luck mould’? Some interesting and good points have been raised and it might be nice to see if we could add another couple of lucky strokes.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi all,

Can any one or more of you fit any or all the points raised on the last two pages in a ‘stroke-of-luck mould’? Some interesting and good points have been raised and it might be nice to see if we could add another couple of lucky strokes.

Cheers,
Frank

OK, I'll start...

Lechmere was lucky that he either wasn't seen in his carman working clothes around the times he killed, or his involvement in the Nichols murder made him realize that it wasn't a smart thing to go around murdering being so clearly recognizable as carman.

[Paul Sutton]

Apologies if this point's already made (I've just joined).

Lechmere was lucky that - until true-crime became a genre - it never occurred to the police that the person who found a body was of special interest. More likely, of course they realised this and looked into him, finding nothing of interest.

He's also lucky that no one else had their mobile phones around, to check times. Or maybe unlucky?

A point that bothers me - not so much luck, as just very odd. If he were the killer posing as first witness, why didn't he claim to have heard someone else leaving the scene? He's nothing to lose and lots to gain from doing so.

[A P Tomlinson]

Apologies if this point's already made (I've just joined).

Lechmere was lucky that - until true-crime became a genre - it never occurred to the police that the person who found a body was of special interest. More likely, of course they realised this and looked into him, finding nothing of interest.

He's also lucky that no one else had their mobile phones around, to check times. Or maybe unlucky?

A point that bothers me - not so much luck, as just very odd. If he were the killer posing as first witness, why didn't he claim to have heard someone else leaving the scene? He's nothing to lose and lots to gain from doing so.

Welcome Paul,

Apparently "Serial killers do weird stuff..."

It's no less likely, considering how they either ignore the lack of blood on Cross, or hand wave it away, that Robert Paul heard Cross approaching, crept into the darkness and doubled back appearing after Cross went over to have a look.
He just pulled a time out of his arse for when he arrived and boom. Bobby The Ripper gets clean away, and is never suspected of anything.

Didn't happen. Obviously. But if you spin it out to include any bit of circumstancial evidence that applies to thousands of others, it's got just as much evidential merit as Cross as a suspect. (He didn't lie about his name...)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A point that bothers me - not so much luck, as just very odd. If he were the killer posing as first witness, why didn't he claim to have heard someone else leaving the scene? He's nothing to lose and lots to gain from doing so.

I recall reading in one of the reports of the inquest proceedings that Lechmere was asked whether he heard or saw anyone leaving the scene of the crime and he replied that he had not.

Once again, his conduct is consistent with his having been innocent of the crime.

[Paul Sutton]

Yes, that's my point. Unless this was a brilliant double-bluff, his non-reporting of anyone else points to his innocence. I've done a long - and possibly annoyingly basic - post as a new thread, on my problems with Lechmere. My biggest is why, if the killer, he didn't run. I don't buy that he was cornered - or panicked.

[Paul Sutton]

Welcome Paul,

Apparently "Serial killers do weird stuff..."

It's no less likely, considering how they either ignore the lack of blood on Cross, or hand wave it away, that Robert Paul heard Cross approaching, crept into the darkness and doubled back appearing after Cross went over to have a look.
He just pulled a time out of his arse for when he arrived and boom. Bobby The Ripper gets clean away, and is never suspected of anything.

Didn't happen. Obviously. But if you spin it out to include any bit of circumstancial evidence that applies to thousands of others, it's got just as much evidential merit as Cross as a suspect. (He didn't lie about his name...)

Thanks for the welcome - I've been lurking for years!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, that's my point. Unless this was a brilliant double-bluff, his non-reporting of anyone else points to his innocence. I've done a long - and possibly annoyingly basic - post as a new thread, on my problems with Lechmere. My biggest is why, if the killer, he didn't run. I don't buy that he was cornered - or panicked.

The murderer appears to have made a hurried escape twice in one night - leaving Dutfield's Yard before he had a chance to carry out any mutilations and before anyone had a chance to see him, and leaving Mitre Square before Watkins arrived.

He did not hang around and wait for someone else to arrive on the scene.

[Paul Sutton]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n821538]



The murderer appears to have made a hurried escape twice in one night - leaving Dutfield's Yard before he had a chance to carry out any mutilations and before anyone had a chance to see him, and leaving Mitre Square before Watkins arrived.

He did not hang around and wait for someone else to arrive on the scene.

And he's supposed to have hurriedly killed Polly, on the spur, yet frozen at the sound of footsteps approaching. Never mind the timings, it doesn't feel right. We know Paul wasn't literally breathing down his neck, since Lechmere had to approach him and steer him towards the body. He could as easily have got clean away - seen, for sure, but identifiable? Unlikely. And if he were that ruthless (i.e. just slashed Nichols) then why not do the same to Paul?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And he's supposed to have hurriedly killed Polly, on the spur, yet frozen at the sound of footsteps approaching. Never mind the timings, it doesn't feel right. We know Paul wasn't literally breathing down his neck, since Lechmere had to approach him and steer him towards the body. He could as easily have got clean away - seen, for sure, but identifiable? Unlikely.

Are you aware of the following statement made by Christer Holmgren in the documentary?



'What I think is that Lechmere heard Paul from a much longer distance than 40 yards.
He must have been disturbed and then he would have had just a little time to do something about the body.'

(Christer Holmgren)

That is an elementary mistake!

If Lechmere had heard Paul coming from such a great distance - say 100 yards - and been the murderer, then he would have hurried away.

It would actually have been easier to get away undetected than it would have been if Lechmere's estimate of the distance were correct.

[Fiver]

The murderer appears to have made a hurried escape twice in one night - leaving Dutfield's Yard before he had a chance to carry out any mutilations and before anyone had a chance to see him, and leaving Mitre Square before Watkins arrived.

He did not hang around and wait for someone else to arrive on the scene.

Excellent point. There was no hanging around to bluff things out at Dutfield's Yard or Mitre Square. Confronting possible eyewitnesses and bluffing their way out was no the Ripper's MO.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Excellent point. There was no hanging around to bluff things out at Dutfield's Yard or Mitre Square. Confronting possible eyewitnesses and bluffing their way out was no the Ripper's MO.

If Lechmere was the Whitechapel murderer, then he must be the Woody Allen of serial murderers.

He is just totally incompetent if he really wants to get away with his crimes.

First, he sees someone coming and makes no attempt to get away.

Then, in spite of the fact that the person coming has not noticed the body and is about to walk straight past, he draws his attention to the body.

To compound his errors, he then goes with that person to find, of all people, a policeman.

Incredibly, he then tells the policeman the name of his employers.

Even more incredibly, he then comes forward to give evidence at the inquest.

On being asked by the coroner whether he saw or heard anyone leaving the scene of the crime on his arrival at it, he replies 'no'!

No wonder the police had no suspicions regarding him.

[A P Tomlinson]

If Lechmere was the Whitechapel murderer, then he must be the Woody Allen of serial murderers.

He is just totally incompetent if he really wants to get away with his crimes.

First, he sees someone coming and makes no attempt to get away.

Then, in spite of the fact that the person coming has not noticed the body and is about to walk straight past, he draws his attention to the body.

To compound his errors, he then goes with that person to find, of all people, a policeman.

Incredibly, he then tells the policeman the name of his employers.

Even more incredibly, he then comes forward to give evidence at the inquest.

On being asked by the coroner whether he saw or heard anyone leaving the scene of the crime on his arrival at it, he replies 'no'!

No wonder the police had no suspicions regarding him.

Don't forget that he gave his real address and employers name to the inquest, while allegedly giving a "False Name" or "Alias". (The people who have decided that he is the man who will be blamed for something, argue that this was a lie, and that his employers wouldn;t have taken enough of an interest to notice the lie. But he supposedly did the same in 1876, when his employers would most definitley have taken interest, since it involved Cross accidentally killing a child while performing his duties for his employers who would have been liable for compensation had the inquest gone badly for Charlie...)

He also offers up to the Nichols inquest, what some regard as "incriminating," the detail of him not wanting to move the body. Evidence, they say, that shows he knew the body was bloody and didn't want to get blood on himself. Which had he killed her, would have provided him the ideal opportunity to create an excuse for having blood on him, as there's no way in Hell that he could be sure that he didn't have some of her blood on him at the point where he meets Robert Paul, that would be visible the first time he stepped into any sort of light...

There's a reason for the title of this thread...
Cross/Lechmere seems to have done everything in his power to deliberately take the sort of immense risks that, should one fall down, he's toast.
He has no idea if there is blood on his face, or clothes, unless he also had the time, (between killing Nichols in a frenzied attack, and waiting for someone to turn up for him share his work with,) to clean himself up to a degree that, in the dark, he was able to be sure that he wouldn't give himself away the second he and his new friend come anywhere near a light.
And THEN... like you say, knowing that there has to be SOME risk of blood being obvious to someone with, say, a lantern or by his new friend while walking near a street lamp... he goes to find a bloody Copper!

But there was a rag dropped in a straight line between two noticeable points. And he may have been stressed over his work/marriage/pick something else. And who knows why serial killers do the things they do?

[Paul Sutton]

If Lechmere was the Whitechapel murderer, then he must be the Woody Allen of serial murderers.

He is just totally incompetent if he really wants to get away with his crimes.

First, he sees someone coming and makes no attempt to get away.

Then, in spite of the fact that the person coming has not noticed the body and is about to walk straight past, he draws his attention to the body.

To compound his errors, he then goes with that person to find, of all people, a policeman.

Incredibly, he then tells the policeman the name of his employers.

Even more incredibly, he then comes forward to give evidence at the inquest.

On being asked by the coroner whether he saw or heard anyone leaving the scene of the crime on his arrival at it, he replies 'no'!

No wonder the police had no suspicions regarding him.

I'd say more like the Frank Spencer of serial killers! Or even the Carlton Palmer, if we're using football analogies.

I didn't realise the claim is he heard Robert Paul from even 40 yards away! Ample time to just walk off.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to APT:

Thank you for mentioning the 1876 inquest.

Many months ago, I mentioned the fact that I once saw an article online about that inquest, which reported that Cross was provided by Pickfords with legal representation at that inquest.

Unfortunately, i can no longer find the article.


About the possibility of deliberately getting blood on him in order to cover up his involvement in the murder, I have seen the argument before.

As for his reluctance to move the body being used against him: murderous psychopaths are not bothered by dead people's bodies at all.

Lechmere's reluctance once again points to his innocence.

I did previously make the point that if he had been the murderer, he could not approach a policeman and be completely confident that no blood would show anywhere on his person.

I think someone retorted that as it was so dark, the policeman might not have noticed blood on him.

Well, he did have a lantern - didn't he?