Lechmere's Behavior in Buck's Row

[Patrick S]

I am not playing games, Patrick. I am pointing you to the information there is, and that information does not tally with what you write.
Incidentally, one should perhaps not call a theory absurd before one has checked these things out.

In short: Lechmere says that he and Paul told Mizen that the woman was drunk or dead.

Mizen says that just one of the carmen spoke to him, and he also says that this carman only informed him that there was a woman flat on her back in Buck´s Row. Not a word about her perhaps being dead, thus. Mizen also pressed the point that the carman said nothing about murder or suicide.

Mizen did not just say that the carman stated that he was awaited in Buck´s Row - he said that ANOTHER POLICEMAN awaited him there.

There is nothing at all to confirm that Paul listened in on what Lechmere said to Mizen. The only paper that states anything at all about where Paul was placed is the Star, that writes: "The other man, who went down Habury Street, ..."

These are all matters that are very important to this absurd theory. Until one realizes how differently Mizen and Lechmere describe the events, it is impossible to see the potential impact.

I´m done for now, Patrick. I´ve got better things to do than to quarrel with people.

The best,
Fisherman

As you seem to quarrel almost constantly, in defense of the above mentioned absurd theory, I thought your calendar was fairly open.

I'm glad you put stock in press reports. I don't. Incorrect names ('Crass'?), details. I'm sure you'd site their unreliability if doing so served to move your theory forward. I've conceded good points when you've made them. Cross is interesting, I grant you. But, 70% sure he's the Ripper? Adding in Smith and Tabram because they were on his route? He's the Torso Killer, too? It took you thirty years to come up with this?

[Lechmere]

And psychopathic behaviour patterns should be expected.

Mr Barnett has it taped

[Fisherman]

Here's a tip: Let's not play games. I'm not running errands. If you want to 'correct' me, do so. It's your absurd theory. Defend it.

I am not playing games, Patrick. I am pointing you to the information there is, and that information does not tally with what you write.
Incidentally, one should perhaps not call a theory absurd before one has checked these things out.

In short: Lechmere says that he and Paul told Mizen that the woman was drunk or dead.

Mizen says that just one of the carmen spoke to him, and he also says that this carman only informed him that there was a woman flat on her back in Buck´s Row. Not a word about her perhaps being dead, thus. Mizen also pressed the point that the carman said nothing about murder or suicide.

Mizen did not just say that the carman stated that he was awaited in Buck´s Row - he said that ANOTHER POLICEMAN awaited him there.

There is nothing at all to confirm that Paul listened in on what Lechmere said to Mizen. The only paper that states anything at all about where Paul was placed is the Star, that writes: "The other man, who went down Habury Street, ..."

These are all matters that are very important to this absurd theory. Until one realizes how differently Mizen and Lechmere describe the events, it is impossible to see the potential impact.

I´m done for now, Patrick. I´ve got better things to do than to quarrel with people.

The best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

I´ve cut this part out from your post, Patrick, and I have a few questions and corrections for you:

They find PC Mizen. They tell him there is a woman in Buck’s Row and she’s either dead or drunk.

Did they?

Mizen later says that ‘Cross’ told him, “You’re wanted in Buck’s Row.”

Was that all?

He’s trying to pull off a lie, right in front of Paul?

Was he right in front of Paul?

Here´s a tip: Go to the press section, read all the papers from the 3:rd and 4:th of September, and then tell me whether your suggestions are corroborated by all parts involved.

The best,
Fisherman

Here's a tip: Let's not play games. I'm not running errands. If you want to 'correct' me, do so. It's your absurd theory. Defend it.

[Patrick S]

By accosting Paul, Cross takes control of the situation. If Lech walks sedately on and Paul stops, inspects the body closely and begins to scream ‘orrible murder’ he’s scuppered. If Paul has already seen something untoward he may sidle quietly past and inform the first PC he meets of his suspicions.

So Lech approaches him, engages him in conversation about the body, exerts control over how closely the body is inspected and then escorts Paul on his way to work. When they do meet a PC Lech puts the right amount of spin on events to enable himself and Paul to go about their business.

The alternatives, fight or flight, immediately alert Paul to the seriousness of the matter. Lech could not expect to subdue an able bodied man as easily or as quietly as he could throttle a woman with whom he was already at close quarters. If he fights or flees, there is a commotion and he is the sole figure racing away from the scene.

Seems to stack up to me, assuming of course a certain steely nerve on Lech's part.

Steely nerve? I'd say so. Seconds from cutting Nichols throat and ripping her abdomen open...Paul doesn't say that Cross is out of breath or agitated in the least. He calm, composed, almost like nothing happened.

[Fisherman]

Seems to stack up to me, assuming of course a certain steely nerve on Lech's part.

... which is why we repeatedly say that it bears the hallmarks of a psychopath in work.

the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

By accosting Paul, Cross takes control of the situation. If Lech walks sedately on and Paul stops, inspects the body closely and begins to scream ‘orrible murder’ he’s scuppered. If Paul has already seen something untoward he may sidle quietly past and inform the first PC he meets of his suspicions.

So Lech approaches him, engages him in conversation about the body, exerts control over how closely the body is inspected and then escorts Paul on his way to work. When they do meet a PC Lech puts the right amount of spin on events to enable himself and Paul to go about their business.

The alternatives, fight or flight, immediately alert Paul to the seriousness of the matter. Lech could not expect to subdue an able bodied man as easily or as quietly as he could throttle a woman with whom he was already at close quarters. If he fights or flees, there is a commotion and he is the sole figure racing away from the scene.

Seems to stack up to me, assuming of course a certain steely nerve on Lech's part.

[Fisherman]

They find PC Mizen. They tell him there is a woman in Buck’s Row and she’s either dead or drunk. Mizen later says that ‘Cross’ told him, “You’re wanted in Buck’s Row.” What did he mean? Did he mean that events warrant that he go to Buck’s Row? He does go on to tell him about the body. Did he mean that they (i.e. Paul and Lechmere) want him to go to Buck’s Row? Was this just an odd bit of phrasing? Is this reason to suspect Lechmere? He’s trying to pull off a lie, right in front of Paul?

I´ve cut this part out from your post, Patrick, and I have a few questions and corrections for you:

They find PC Mizen. They tell him there is a woman in Buck’s Row and she’s either dead or drunk.

Did they?

Mizen later says that ‘Cross’ told him, “You’re wanted in Buck’s Row.”

Was that all?

He’s trying to pull off a lie, right in front of Paul?

Was he right in front of Paul?

Here´s a tip: Go to the press section, read all the papers from the 3:rd and 4:th of September, and then tell me whether your suggestions are corroborated by all parts involved.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

When Cross heard Paul's footsteps, Paul was still about 40 yards behind him. Cross had therefore time enough to walk away, no need to run.
Worse : Paul tried to avoid Cross....and would have done so, hadn't Cross called him.

Sorry Fish, but honestly, it doesn't work.

[J6123]

i think it's a weak case made even weaker by the fact he was married with children. i fancy the killer would have been more fight or flight rather than hang around and make out he'd just found her.

[Patrick S]

I won´t precede your answer to my post on the other thread, Patrick, so I will make no comments on your post here until further notice.

Fisherman

Fair enough.

[Fisherman]

I won´t precede your answer to my post on the other thread, Patrick, so I will make no comments on your post here until further notice.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

How many topics do we need to prove that Crossmere wasn't the Ripper?

It´s a waste of time to even try, Harry.

Fisherman

[Harry D]

How many topics do we need to prove that Crossmere wasn't the Ripper?

[Patrick S]

Let’s take a closer look at Lechmere’s behavior the morning of the murder, at the murder scene, and his interactions with Paul and PC Mizen.
Lechmere says he left home at approximately 3:20am. He passed Buck’s Row at approximately 3:40am. He saw something on the ground, thought it to be a tarpaulin. On closer inspection he saw that it was a woman. At that moment Robert Paul walks up. Lechmere says to him, “Come see this woman.”

So let’s pause here and make an assumption: Lechmere had just killed Mary Ann Nichols. Paul walks upon the scene. Remember, Paul was one man. These two men were alone on a dark street, one that’s just afforded Lechmere the privacy to kill Nichols for no reason other than that he wanted to. Why not kill Paul for walking upon the scene? So, let’s say his choices are: A) run; B) attack/kill Paul; C) continue on his way and hope Paul does not see the body; D) hide, see if Paul notices the body (if he does choose options A or B); E) attempt a bluff. So, we know that Lechmere, who we assume was the killer for this exercise, chose E.

He chose to bluff. Let’s think about his bluff, shall we. He could have tried to divert Paul’s attention. He could have tried to explain the woman lying prone on the pavement (my wife is drunk, etc.). He could have tried to divert Paul’s attention (Have anything to drink?). Instead he goes with, “Come see this woman!” Paul accompanies him to the body. Lechmere touches a hand. He does not say, “I think she’s drunk.” No. He says, “I think she’s dead.” Let’s take account of this: He killed her. He asked Paul to come and see her. He tells Paul that he thinks she’s dead.

Paul wants to move the body. Lechmere does not. If Lechmere killed her he KNOWS that she’s covered with blood. For all he knows, he is covered in blood also. This is a prime opportunity to explain away any blood that may already be on his person. He has two choices here: A) say yes – move the body and have a witness to your doing so; B) say no – hope you have no blood on your person that you may have to explain away to a policeman, other witnesses, etc. Remember, Lechmere does not know the future. He has no idea where this is headed. He declines to move the body.

So here we are. Lechmere has just killed Nichols. He’s carved up her abdomen. Paul walks upon him. It’s dark. He’s armed. They are alone. He’s just committed murder. He resists tens of thousands of years of instinct. He decides against flight. He decides against fight. Instead, he conceals the knife, asks Paul to take a look at the woman (he just killed). Tells him she’s dead.

Paul sees no blood. Thinks he detects movement. Thinks she may be alive. They agree to continue on their way to work together, and try to find a policeman. Lechmere, still, stays with Paul. He doesn’t walk a distance and say, “I go this way” and walk off into the night. No. They find PC Mizen. They tell him there is a woman in Buck’s Row and she’s either dead or drunk. Mizen later says that ‘Cross’ told him, “You’re wanted in Buck’s Row.” What did he mean? Did he mean that events warrant that he go to Buck’s Row? He does go on to tell him about the body. Did he mean that they (i.e. Paul and Lechmere) want him to go to Buck’s Row? Was this just an odd bit of phrasing? Is this reason to suspect Lechmere? He’s trying to pull off a lie, right in front of Paul? Who’s been with him the whole time? Why do that? He could have run at any time. He could have killed Paul. He could have hidden. Now he’s playing out his bluff? Lying? In front of a man who is in position to expose his lie to a policeman?

Lechmere then gives his name as Charles Cross. He gives his true occupation, employer, and address. Is this odd? Yeah. Looking back from 130 years, it does look strange. However, in 1888, it was likely easily explained. My hunch is if we were to privy to his reasoning for giving his name as Charles Cross, we’d shrug our shoulder and say, “Oh. Well. Okay.” But we aren’t. Thus, we have a “suspect”.