Lechmere's Behavior in Buck's Row

[Wickerman]

For sure, as I would have heard Paul coming (who was at about 40 yards behind me), I would have gone my way.
If Paul had stopped over the body and discovered it was a corpse, the only thing he could have said is that he had seen somebody leaning over the body, in the dark, and that this guy had then peacefully gone away.

I was thinking along the same lines.
Anyone approaching would surely pause over the body, if only to see if they could give assistance. They may even walk completely past it (as Cross almost did) not realizing the shape was a body. It wasn't obvious a murder had taken place, so this gives me time to hot-foot it around the Board School, across and down Woods Passage, into Whitechapel High St., and disappear.

[MrBarnett]

Good point, Harry,

I think I would be anxious to allay the suspicions of a passer-by whether I was innocent or guilty, though obviously more so if I was guilty. And if I was innocent, I might be suspicious of the passer-by and be wary of approaching him.

MrB

[Sam Flynn]

The other reason it gains traction is that it is one of the few that is grounded in reality - in that the suspect fits the pattern of what serial killers in the real world tend to be like. The unobtrusive nobody...

True enough, but surely Cross isn't the only unobtrusive nobody to have been named a suspect?

[Harry D]

Yup, no one ever seems to consider that even if there were actions that could be construed as shifty on Crossmere's part, he could have been simply trying to avoid suspicion because... he didn't do it!

[MrBarnett]

Patrick,

If they move the body and Paul becomes aware that it has been horribly mutilated, the risk is that Paul will lose it and start screaming bloody murder. I doubt that Lech. was anticipating his meeting with Thain at that point.

No dastardly master plan, just an instinctive reaction.

MrB

[Lechmere]

In my experience the disinterested observer finds Lechmere's behaviour suspicious, when the events of that night are deconstructed. That is why the theory gains traction.
The other reason it gains traction is that it is one of the few that is grounded in reality - in that the suspect fits the pattern of what serial killers in the real world tend to be like. The unobtrusive nobody - yet when the spotlight is put on him there are many grounds for suspicion.

[Patrick S]

Barnaby, Your scenario, like most, presupposes that Cross could see the future. "If he moves the body (he) eliminates his tactic of simply telling Mizen that he is wanted in Buck's Row. Now they have to go off in search of a PC and tell him that a woman has been knifed to death in Buck's Row." He's been in Paul's company likely less than a minute or two. You have his lines to the PC he's not encountered yet scripted and the actions that will make his words to that PC credible already planned.

I'm sorry. The entire episode, from Paul meeting Cross to their conversation with Mizen bears the hallmarks of rational people acting rationally. Random events, when looked upon suspiciously to fit a preconceived idea will look suspicious, every time.

[Patrick S]

(Advanced Warning: Time Traveling Post) To those opposed to Cross as a Ripper suspect, if you had the opportunity to go back in time and question any ten "suspects" in connection with the Ripper case with the goal of not filling in interesting historical details but actually attempting to solve the crimes, would Cross be in your Top Ten?

What I am trying to understand is if your objection is to Cross as a viable suspect altogether or if you think the strength of his candidacy has simply been overblown.

He'd make my list.

I don't think that I can name ten people that could make a credible Jack the Ripper. Many are interesting. Few are - for me - realistic.

[Barnaby]

When I originally considered the behavior of Cross when Paul approached I too find it just about the most risky option to engage in. Why not just slip away? The replies from those advocating his candidacy are that he is a psychopath, etc., but to me that isn't a good explanation. Of course the killer is a psychopath, and most would slip away.

Or would they?

I started this exercise thinking under what circumstances would Cross's behavior be completely rational; that is, assuming he is the killer, that this behavior is the exact thing that he should do to minimize the chances that he would be caught.

I think that there is a scenario. Cross is engaging in the mutilations and isn't aware of Paul's approach until Paul is very close. Within seconds close. Cross could run but Paul would notice the mutilations, hear Cross fleeing, start screaming for the police etc. A manhunt would ensue and there is a real possibility that Cross gets picked up. He could attack Paul but Paul isn't an old sick prostitute. Paul could fight back. Risky. By taking the few seconds to hide the mutilations and the knife and pretending to discover the body, Cross takes immediate control of the situation.

Why not move the body and get some blood on his person to explain away the blood already there? If he did this Paul would discover the horrific nature of the murder. This eliminates his tactic of simply telling Mizen that he is wanted in Buck's Row. Now they have to go off in search of a PC and tell him that a woman has been knifed to death in Buck's Row. Or more probably, Paul starts screaming his head off and the police find them at the scene. In either case, now Paul and Cross are covered in blood and very likely will be searched. Remember that Cross still has the murder weapon on his person. Why draw attention to himself with more blood?

I realize that I haven't answered all of the initial questions as I am still working through this myself. By I don't think that Cross's seemingly bizarre behavior if he were the killer is that irrational at all the more I think about it.

[Barnaby]

(Advanced Warning: Time Traveling Post) To those opposed to Cross as a Ripper suspect, if you had the opportunity to go back in time and question any ten "suspects" in connection with the Ripper case with the goal of not filling in interesting historical details but actually attempting to solve the crimes, would Cross be in your Top Ten?

What I am trying to understand is if your objection is to Cross as a viable suspect altogether or if you think the strength of his candidacy has simply been overblown.

He'd make my list.

[DVV]

Hi DVV ,
Another hypothetical question (sorry).
How would you have reacted if you had been Paul, had seen Cross walk off without saying a word and then discovered that what he was looking at was a freshly mutilated corpse?
MrB

What could I have done ?
Strictly nothing.
Time to walk these 40 yards, understand that it was a woman, that she was dead, and Cross would have disappeared forever.
I could merely have said that I'd seen a figure in the dark - and that it may have been that of the killer. Or not.

[DVV]

Hi Gareth,

Where did you buy your dictionary ?

[MrBarnett]

Hi DVV ,

Another hypothetical question (sorry).

How would you have reacted if you had been Paul, had seen Cross walk off without saying a word and then discovered that what he was looking at was a freshly mutilated corpse?

MrB

[Sam Flynn]

The most flexible psychopat ever.

"Psychopat" = What results when a cow smokes her grass, instead of eating it.

[DVV]

We agree on this point. I was attempting to point out - poorly it seems - that Lechmere and Fisherman view his interactions with Paul as the master plan of psychopath, as opposed to guy who just walked up on a body. In my mind, by saying 'come see this woman', he show's no consciousness of guilt whatsoever. Agreec, if Paul had walked up go him, Lechmere may have been hoping he'd walk on by, only going with the 'ruse' of 'finding the body' when it was clear Paul hadn't seen him doing anything other than standing near it. Again, they have stated clearly that nothing in the man's life, outside his being Jack the Ripper, leads them to believe he was a psychopath. It's back to the bayonet v. dagger argument. It could not have been a bayonet because that implicates a soldier, not Lechmere. Along the same line of thinking, Lechmere must have been a psychopath, because he was Jack the Ripper, and only a psychopath could have committed these murders. As absurd as that rationale sounds, it was said, almost verbatim, somewhere in this thread.

Agreed all round.
The most flexible psychopat ever.