Lechmere's Behavior in Buck's Row

[Lechmere]

And we have the evidence that Neil could hear Thain at the far end of Bucks Row

[sleekviper]

Just me, but the doubt centers on the "froze in time" aspect. Someone is killing under windows, on streets, without the concerns of the Fanny voyeur peeking out to see who is doing what. In a time with no television, radio, or computer to hold individuals attention, and no sudden shining of a light after a switch has been flipped, that is seems to be something of a God complex, or shear madness. Either someone will alert him of their presence by sound, or watch in fear, unless he is totally mad during that point and just doesn't care. Either way, Paul must die since he freezes time for Cross. What I mean is, he can not correct anything once he approaches Paul, and his possible voyeur is about to send him to the gallows. Somehow he knows that no blood is on his person, either from hiding the knife or the assault, he knows that at no time he touched his face which would possibly have left blood traces, but there is no possible way to know if someone has peered out, and is frozen in fear from a dark window. That witness does not need to see a face, or details of anyone, they are going to relay the exact same actions of figures in the dark, that both Cross and Paul are saying, except with the addition of the murder. Unless two more individuals show up doing the exact same actions after the murder, he has confessed, unless he kills Paul. Kill Paul, and it does not matter about blood on his person, and anyone watching probably can not give details to connect him to anything. We do not know Cross possibly, if he kills Paul. As I said, just me, but seems like a tremendous amount of hindsight, or a crystal ball for Paul to remain alive if Cross had anything to do with the death of Nichols.

[Lechmere]

I think whoever did it was oblivious to the windows. It is easy to regard then as being similar to walls and the disregard being observed from within.

[sleekviper]

That is fine, for me the night hides points that can be seen, as long as there is no connection to take his control of the situation. Paul does that, and I think he dies if Cross is a killer.

[Lechmere]

I don't think serial killers kill inconvenient male interlopers.

[Sam Flynn]

The times he was on the streets corresponded with the times of other murders.

We really don't know that for certain, Rainbow, and we won't unless a work roster, or equivalent, turns up.

His possible routes to and from work were close to other murder sites.

Untold numbers of people (working or otherwise) were "close" to the murder sites as well. We're talking about a very compact district, which at the time had tens of thousands of male residents, any one of whom might have been the Ripper.

Who knows, he may have been travelling around the British Isles on a Pickfords van murdering and dropping bodies as he went

It was horse-drawn, so that's a wee bit unlikely

So, we're left with "Cross was discovered near a body" - which is, when you think of it, a slightly loaded way of saying, "Cross discovered a body". Stated simply thus, we find Cross in the same category as Davis, Dymshitz, PC Watkins and "Indian Harry" Bowyer, as others have pointed out.

[sleekviper]

Serial killers would not kill a witness that could tie him to a crime?

[Fisherman]

lynn cates:

...would Lechmere have been aware of Paul's apprehensions?
Cheers.

Lechmere said himself at the inquest that Paul seemed to be afraid that he (Lech) was gonna knock him down.

So the answer to your question is yes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rainbow]

We do not know Cross possibly, if he kills Paul. As I said, just me, but seems like a tremendous amount of hindsight, or a crystal ball for Paul to remain alive if Cross had anything to do with the death of Nichols.

You gave me something I didn't think of before , as we know Cross was a father and had childrens , and maybe he was religious too , Jack didn't kill any man , and he was interested only in prostitutes , maybe he didn't want to kill someone who to him was an inocent soul , maybe that will give us a light on his true motive of killings ..

[Lechmere]

Gareth
It's disingenuous to say that excluding the name swap Lechmere is in the same category as the other first finders as there are a host of other issues which you know have been discussed and which are wholly absent from the others.
Also although it could just be true that normally Lechmere was due at work at 8am and it was just sods law that he went in early that morning - let's face it, it's more likely he went in at the early time and on those general routes - the quickest being Old Montague Street - every night. It certainly isn't unreasonable to suggest it.
This puts him - geographically speaking - head and shoulders above any other named individual who could plausibly be described as a suspect - about whom there isn't the slightest hint of a suggestion that they might have been out and about at the right time and place.

[Lechmere]

Sleepviper
I think it is a misconception that psychopathic serial killers are generally violent, brave or prone to attacking anyone - they tend to attack exclusively the most vulnerable and defenseless, and never fight their way out of tricky situations

I say never - you may find one or two exceptional examples.

[Sam Flynn]

It's disingenuous to say that excluding the name swap Lechmere is in the same category as the other first finders as there are a host of other issues which you know have been discussed and which are wholly absent from the others.

No disingenuity at all, Ed. I was only responding to the points Rainbow raised - and responding fairly and accurately.

Since you mention name-swapping, why is it that Thomas Bowyer became "Indian Harry"? And why is it that, despite our best efforts and his unusual name, we know comparatively little about (convicted criminal) Louis Dymshitz? And didn't John Davis have his trouser-belt off when he ran into the street, leaving Annie Chapman behind with her legs akimbo? The dirty old bugger

If there are a host of other issues with Cross, that's only because we know about them - thanks to yours, and others' excellent research. However, goodness knows what issues the other first-finders may have had.

[Lechmere]

Gareth
I know I was butting in!
We know Indian Harry's nickname as unlike Lechmere's name swap it did not remain secret for nearly 120 years.
I don't think not knowing much about someone is much of a sign of guilt.
But now you mention that subject - some underrate the significance of the sheer quantity of Lechmere records (and zero for Cross that he was responsible for, except after finding Nichols).
The grounds for suspicion against Lechmere are primarily based on deconstructing the standard 'Ripper' records rather than research. Although there has been research to lend substance.
Try deconstructing the 'Ripper' records to make even a half arguable case against one of those other first finders.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think not knowing much about someone is much of a sign of guilt.

No more a sign of guilt than knowing a little bit about them

Try deconstructing the 'Ripper' records to make even a half arguable case against one of those other first finders.

If you re-read my response to Rainbow, my point is that using such phrases as "Cross was found by a body" immediately casts a sinister air over the situation; a sinister air which all but disappears if we say "Cross found a body". That's all. I'm not suggesting that being a "first-finder" alone should incriminate anyone - not even Cross. (And I'm not suggesting that you'd argue in that way, either.)

I'm simply observing that we must be careful how we use words, as they can subtly influence the way we think. It's a general comment, not one specifically directed at the candidacy of Cross.

[Lechmere]

I try to use neutral terms.
I would suggest...
'Found by the body'
is considerably more neutral than...
'Found a body.'