Tweet
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”.
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”.
Comment