Lechmere's Behavior in Buck's Row

[Patrick S]

Exactly.

And the 'walk calmly away' option leaves Paul's reaction to chance. He may have immediately screamed blue murder.
By approaching him Lechmere exerted a degree of control over the immediate situation. He was able to manage events.
Notice that Lechmere took 'control' of the head area - the neck wound area, while Paul fussed around her chest and legs.

Why not cut Paul's throat as he bent over the body? He just did for Nichols in the same manner. Why leave ANYTHING to chance? Why look for a cop with Paul? You want to talk about control!? He killed Nichols. He's in control. Up walks Paul, "Come look at this woman? Is she alive (Paul bends over the body)?" Bingo. Two dead bodies. Cross goes whistling on his way to work.

[Rainbow]

because they are nice people , and because they can't think as a serial killer and by the way , who told you that when he call to him , he wasn't thinking of killing him ! you can't roll out this possibility completely ..

[Sam Flynn]

What other unobtrusive nobodies did you have in mind?

The likes of Barnett, Hutchinson, Kosminski, Sadler, Kidney. I might even add Bury to that mix in that, if he hadn't later committed a murder, he'd have been just another East End nobody as far as we're concerned.

[Patrick S]

because they are nice people , and because they can't think as a serial killer and by the way , who told you that when he call to him , he wasn't thinking of killing him ! you can't roll out this possibility completely ..

Then why didn't he kill him?

Please quote the post your responding to. We don't know what you're responding to. Thanks.

[DVV]

Mostly, laughter ensured.

Tell them that in order to con the cops and preserve his incognito, he chose his step-father name as an alias, and cunning as he was, gave his genuine address.
Five will laugh like ten.

[Sam Flynn]

Ok.
Reeves is the best suspect for Tabram, Davis has killed Chapman, Diemshutz Stride, Eddowes encountered Watkins-the-Ripper, and Bowyer took care of MJK.

Exactly! How that bunch of cunning so-and-so's got away with it for so long defies belief!

[Rainbow]

because Paul thought she was alive and breathing , at this point , all the pressure on Cross has gone , and thats why he refused to touch the body more , and chose to take Paul from the crime sence ..

[MrBarnett]

Then why didn't he kill him?

Perhaps because he had no experience of killing with a knife, or killing a grown man.

MrB

[Patrick S]

Then why didn't he kill him?

Please quote the post your responding to. We don't know what you're responding to. Thanks.

Oh, I did. I'll withhold their general reaction out of kindness and charity.

Ah. No I won't. They looked at me like I was insane. And then they laughed like hell.

[Patrick S]

Perhaps because he had no experience of killing with a knife, or killing a grown man.

MrB

Well, Rainbow. According to the theory you're buying into here, Nichols was his third victim. So it's not for lack of experience, agreed? As for not killing a grown man....he's a psychopath, right? He's got a guy bent over before him, what makes the difference? A man's neck doesn't hold up better to 'strong blade' being across it any better than a woman's does.

What I describe above didn't happen because Cross didn't kill Nichols. And if he did, it's absurd that he'd turn the crime scene into show and tell social hour.

[DVV]

The likes of Barnett, Hutchinson, Kosminski, Sadler, Kidney. I might even add Bury to that mix in that, if he hadn't later committed a murder, he'd have been just another East End nobody as far as we're concerned.

Sorry Gareth, but before summer 2009, you wouldn't have put Hutch in this category.
A signature does not explains Hutch's suspect, Hutch's behaviour, etc.

[MrBarnett]

because Paul thought she was alive and breathing , at this point , all the pressure on Cross has gone , and thats why he refused to touch the body more , and chose to take Paul from the crime sence ..

Fast track this cadet through Hendon. Only 14 posts and he/she's got it already.

Well done, Rainbow.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Well, Rainbow. According to the theory you're buying into here, Nichols was his third victim. So it's not for lack of experience, agreed? As for not killing a grown man....he's a psychopath, right? He's got a guy bent over before him, what makes the difference? A man's neck doesn't hold up better to 'strong blade' being across it any better than a woman's does.

What I describe above didn't happen because Cross didn't kill Nichols. And if he did, it's absurd that he'd turn the crime scene into show and tell social hour.

Please address the person you're quoting, otherwise it gets a little confusing

[Lechmere]

Patrick
Dare I suggest that as you regard the Lechmere theory as hogwash and in the same category as Sickert, Van Gogh and Lewis Carroll you may – just may – have not done the theory justice when discussing it with your five buddies.

And it’s not that we have one person finding the body. We have one person being found by the body by someone else. Those two people the leave the body and it is found again by a third person.
If you constantly misrepresent the scenario is it any wonder that your five buddies were unable to come to a rational conclusion?

That is why (DVV) the Reeves, Dimschutz, Davis and Bowyer examples are not comparisons. Apart from they show how innocent people react when confronted by a dead body.

Patrick (back to you)
You keep repeating the ‘why not kill Paul’ question – with which you seem to have promoted your buddies. I would hope that you might have picked up that psychopathic killers rarely if ever turn on an interrupter– particularly if male. They deliberately seek out weak victims – ones that will not put up much resistance. It would barely cross such a killers mind to use their knife on an able bodied person. That you keep suggesting this course of action suggests to me that you don’t really understand this type of crime.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry Gareth, but before summer 2009, you wouldn't have put Hutch in this category.

Hutch was an ordinary geezer who was (he says) present at a murder scene and whose name appeared in the papers in connection with the case. To that extent, he is no different from Lechmere. The fact that later researchers happen to ping both Lechmere and Hutch for ostensibly similar reasons - i.e. they were both incorrigible liars! - makes the comparison even more apposite.