Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

That Robert Paul is a tinker is he not. How could he be pulling down the clothing when Killermere had already done so to hide the wounds? Surely you are not suggesting the Killermere Theory has a wee hole in it?

More holes than a 100 golf courses Geddy. I’d class the theory as having comedy value if nothing else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s also remarkable how, in a deserted backstreet, Robert Paul managed somehow to sneak up on Cross. Perhaps he really was tiptoeing to work in tennis shoes and Cross was for some reason, more tied up in this murder than any of the others, so that only here did he become deaf. And only in what was probably his first murder, when he would have been less sure of himself, was he so completely oblivious to his own safety that he carried on killing and butchering without checking his surrounding. It’s almost a miracle that he was never caught.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a question from me, which I presume you won't answer. Now I've been an admin on a vBulletin type board like this for over 20 years. So I know just a smidge about the formatting of such boards. Needless to say your recent posts (since the avatar change) have been a mix of HTML and plain text.

So my question is who are you copying and pasting your posts from and more to the point why? (Proof? " ")

Back to your question, he didn't run because he was not guilty - it's that simple.

Yes, Cross is the only serial killer in the entire history of crime who stood around waiting for someone to arrive. So it’s not just rare…we have no example of it ever having happened before. You really can’t get more remote than that.

It dismisses him as the ripper. There’s no going back after that.

[Fiver]

The same ever repeated, eternal question, Why didn’t he run?

Because, apparently, in the world of anti-Lechmere logic, murderers are either Olympic sprinters or cartoon villains who vanish in a puff of smoke the second things go south.

Your Strawman is provably false. Read Inside Buck's Row or watch the timing videos of Jeff Hamm. The Ripper could have walked off into the darkness and been round the corner by the time Robert Paul reached the body, let alone examined it closely enough to determine she was dead.

They conveniently forget, or perhaps deliberately ignore that the Ripper, the emotionally engaged killer of the night, wasn’t some stealthy ninja plotting an escape route, he was deep in his “work” when the unexpected happened, someone in a hurry approached, who could ruin everything.

A shadowy figure, entirely lost in the twisted emotional release of his actions, he wasn’t scanning the horizon for witnesses, he was fully absorbed. And then... BAM! Footsteps. Heart racing, mind spinning, he suddenly realized he’d been caught mid act.

By the time he realized this, it was far too late to sprint without looking guilty as sin.

The Baron

You imagine a scenario where Rippermere has the time to pull out a handkerchief, wipe the blood off his hands and the knife, conceal the handkerchief and knife, then move from crouching near the body facing west to moving into the middle of the street and towards Robert Paul, then turning around to face the body without being seen or heard by Paul, but doesn't have time to hug the shadows and walk off into the darkness.

Your scenario is farcical nonsense.

[Geddy2112]

In Paul’s testimony we have him feeling the hands and face and finding them cold and then he actually puts his head closer to the body to see if he could detect breathing. He couldn’t. He was adamant that he felt no other part of the body apart from the hands and face but as he was pulling down her clothing he ‘fancied’ that he felt a slight movement.

That Robert Paul is a tinker is he not. How could he be pulling down the clothing when Killermere had already done so to hide the wounds? Surely you are not suggesting the Killermere Theory has a wee hole in it?

[Geddy2112]

The same ever repeated, eternal question, Why didn’t he run?

Just a question from me, which I presume you won't answer. Now I've been an admin on a vBulletin type board like this for over 20 years. So I know just a smidge about the formatting of such boards. Needless to say your recent posts (since the avatar change) have been a mix of HTML and plain text.

So my question is who are you copying and pasting your posts from and more to the point why? (Proof? " ")

Back to your question, he didn't run because he was not guilty - it's that simple.

[The Baron]

The same ever repeated, eternal question, Why didn’t he run?

Because, apparently, in the world of anti-Lechmere logic, murderers are either Olympic sprinters or cartoon villains who vanish in a puff of smoke the second things go south.

They conveniently forget, or perhaps deliberately ignore that the Ripper, the emotionally engaged killer of the night, wasn’t some stealthy ninja plotting an escape route, he was deep in his “work” when the unexpected happened, someone in a hurry approached, who could ruin everything.

A shadowy figure, entirely lost in the twisted emotional release of his actions, he wasn’t scanning the horizon for witnesses, he was fully absorbed. And then... BAM! Footsteps. Heart racing, mind spinning, he suddenly realized he’d been caught mid act.

By the time he realized this, it was far too late to sprint without looking guilty as sin.

What’s the play here? Run and practically shout, “Yes, I’m guilty!” to everyone nearby?

He might as well have screamed “Don’t mind the body! I was just leaving!” if he’d tried to run..

Might as well throw in a loud “Catch me if you can!” while he's at it, just to really drive the point home.

Nothing screams innocence like bolting from a murder scene at full speed, right? He’d have been better off waving his arms wildly and yelling “Don’t look over here! Mind your business!” to the first constable he ran into.

He might as well have hung a sign around his neck reading “Ask me about my recent stabbing spree!” Running would’ve been like signing a confession letter, complete with a detailed map of the crime scene, it wasn’t just risky.. it was basically self incrimination.

Staying put, on the other hand, gave him the only chance to save the night, It was the only play he had left after losing track of his surroundings and the best option that didn’t end with him looking like a suspect caught red handed, or, well, red everythinged, considering the situation..

So he stayed, pivoting to his “friendly neighborhood passerby” routine with the precision of someone who’s no stranger to improvising. Bluffing was the only move left in his playbook, and he executed it like a seasoned actor in a life or death performance.

By the time the passerby arrived, Lechmere had no choice but to switch to Plan B, rope him into the situation and drag him into his alibi web.

Leaving with company.. what a stroke of cunning! Suddenly, he was now a guy who stumbled across the scene with someone else. If a constable showed up, he’d have a built in witness to back up his story. That’s not innocence, that’s survival instinct.

Dismissing the idea that the Ripper was emotionally invested in his actions is naive. He was completely absorbed in his twisted mission and certainly wasn’t waiting for a passerby with a PowerPoint presentation titled “Why I’m Definitely Not Jack the Ripper.”

He was cornered, improvising, and relying on his ability to smooth talk his way out of trouble.

For those clinging to the idea that running wouldn’t have made him look guilty, I’d suggest you go stand near a body.. alone.. in a dark alley.. and see how fast you think running feels like a viable option. It doesn’t.

Real life isn’t a gothic novel where killers dissolve into the mist whenever someone inconveniently appears...

He didn’t run... But don’t mistake that for innocence. It’s just the only play he had left. And frankly, it’s a pretty convincing one, if you ignore the glaring trail of suspicion he left behind.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve been looking again through thirteen accounts of Cross and Paul’s inquest testimony to try and get a general impression in regard to consistencies and inconsistencies. The first thing that I think that we should all acknowledge is that no report is the sum total of what was actually said and that errors occur and so we should be very wary of basing theories or ideas on one particular ‘version’ which is something that we see occurring. We can’t cherrypick what suits a theory. I began with The Times and The Telegraph as a baseline and then compared them with others mainly to look at the ‘alive/dead’ dispute.

The Times has Cross saying that after touching the victims hands he concluded that she was dead but Paul, according to him, put his hand ‘over her heart’ leading him to think that she might have been still breathing. He doesn’t feel breath or hear her breathing it was a case of he thinking that he felt movement which led him to conclude that she might have been breathing. An issue arises however after they had met Mizen because Cross said that the woman was either dead or drunk but Paul now appeared confident that she was dead. It’s worth noting that at the time Cross had no reason to believe that she had been murdered (neither men had seen any of the wounds)

In Paul’s testimony we have him feeling the hands and face and finding them cold and then he actually puts his head closer to the body to see if he could detect breathing. He couldn’t. He was adamant that he felt no other part of the body apart from the hands and face but as he was pulling down her clothing he ‘fancied’ that he felt a slight movement.

In The Telegraph we again have Cross touching the cold hands and concluding that he believed that she was dead. Again though we have Paul touching her heart area and suggesting that he thinks that she’s breathing but only a little if she was. We then have him telling Mizen that she was either dead or drunk but he favoured that she was dead. There’s no mention of what Paul said. Cross said that he’d thought that she might have been ‘outraged’ and that she had passed out which is in line with The Times report where he said that he had no reason to believe that she’d been murdered. Entirely logical of course, they had seen no blood and her skirts were raised.

Paul said that he’d touch the hands and face and found them cold which is strange because Cross said that he face was warm. Paul felt that he detected a slight movement, like breathing.


One problem that we have is that in the 13 versions that I’ve looked at we only get 3 which include testimony from Paul and in none of them does he mention what he’d said to Mizen. We only have Cross’s version and in every one where he mentions what Paul said he has him stating that the victim was dead.

So why would Cross ‘lie’ about Paul saying that he believed the woman dead when he knew that Paul’s testimony was coming up? It makes no sense. So what is the likeliest interpretation taken from the testimonies as a whole, retaining at least a modicum of common sense. I’d suggest this -


Both Cross and Paul checked the victims hands and concluded that she was probably dead but at some point Paul touched her chest and ‘fancied’ (believed but without certainty) that he might have detected movement which he concluded could only have been breathing (after she had probably been strangled before having her throat cut back to the backbone followed by abdominal mutilations!) At some point though, before reaching Mizen he realised that he might have imagined it or that perhaps there was another explanation for the movement? Recall, The Times version records ‘While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.’ So he touches her breast in the process of doing something else. A fleeting touch. A simple, understandable error from a man with zero medical knowledge. That he was undecided fits in with Cross saying that Paul then decided that she was probably dead after all.


It appears that it was Paul who suggested propping her up but Cross refused. Is this a ‘suspicious’ reaction? Not on earth, no. Crosstians suggest that Cross didn’t want the wounds revealed. I’d suggest that avoiding calling a complete stranger over to look at the body as a better way of not having the wounds revealed. After all, had no way of stopping Paul if he’d tried to loosen her collar. As is usually the case, attempts to shape evidence to suit a theory usually unravels in the light of reason and common sense. Immediately after the suggestion by Paul Cross suggests that they go for a Constable with the obvious inference being that he (and Paul) were mainly concerned with getting to work and not mauling around a corpse. Especially one that they were 100% sure was dead. Who wants a drunken woman waking up, finding two men manhandling her, and yelling ‘rape’ at the top of her voice? No. Crosstians suggest that actions are entirely normal as we all know.

Crosstians also suggest that they pulled down her skirts to avoid wounds being discovered but this is even worse drivel than the suggestion about the propping up. The skirt was raised and they still hadn’t seen the abdominal wounds so in that light and with the position of the clothing the wounds clearly weren’t visible and again, if he didn’t want the wounds seen don’t call over a stranger for a look and a chat.

As ever, when we strip away the silliness, the showboating and the agenda it’s usually possible to come away with a reasonable, reasoned, feet firmly on planet Earth explanation. Of course this kind of explanation won’t fit with anyone who takes a more Agatha Christie approach to evidence but you can’t please everyone can you?



Additional point

In The Times we get from Paul’s testimony:

“They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen.”

It seems strange that they agreed to go look for a Constable but looked for one before they left. Might this suggest that the two men knew that Bucks Row was on a police beat and just looked to see if one was approaching? Not wishing to hang around (as they didn’t know how long before Neill would show up) they moved on.

[Geddy2112]

* Maria Louisa Roulson did not commit bigamy with Thomas Cross or Joseph Forsdike.
* Listing her as a widow was not falsifying marriage documents.
* The second and third marriages would only have been void if John Allen Cross had shown up and pressed charges.

Awesome, very good. Although even if she did commit bigamy it's hardly is a point of guilt against her son. I mean for all we know she just loved Wedding Cake...

[Fiver]

But Edward always tells us she was a bigamist, who is telling the truth?

"A person marrying again during the lifetime of his or her wife or husband is not guilty of bigamy if the wife or husband has been continually absent for seven years, and has not been known by such person to be living within that time." - A Dictionary of English Law, Charles Sweet, 1882.

"With respect to a person whose husband or wife has been continuously absent for the last seven years, and the fact of whose existence has been unknown to such person during that time, the presumption is that the former consort is no longer living, and that such person is a widower or a widow. As the law allows a person under these circumstances to marry again with impunity...." The Marriage Law of England, James T Hammick, 1878

Hammick does go on to say that the second marriage would be considered void if the first spouse reappeared.

"Whosoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place in England or Ireland or elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liablev to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years/

Provided, that nothing in this section contained shall extend to any second marriage contracted elsewhere than in England and Ireland by any other than a subject of Her Majesty, or to any person marrying a second time whose husband or wife shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years then last past, and shall not have been known by such person to be living within that time, or shall extend to any person who, at the time of such second marriage, shall have been divorced from the bond of the first marriage, or to any person whose former marriage shall have been declared void by the sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction." - Offences against the Person Act 1861

* Maria Louisa Roulson did not commit bigamy with Thomas Cross or Joseph Forsdike.
* Listing her as a widow was not falsifying marriage documents.
* The second and third marriages would only have been void if John Allen Cross had shown up and pressed charges.

[JeffHamm]

But Edward always tells us she was a bigamist, who is telling the truth?

There is no truth in fiction, by definition.

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

* Lechmere's mom, who waited the legally required 7 years before remarrying, was a bigamist.

But Edward always tells us she was a bigamist, who is telling the truth?

[Geddy2112]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvX5E2jMvDE&ab_channel=TheRipperTrials%3AHistory%E2%80%99sGreatestDefenses

[FrankO]

Lechmere couldn't run when Paul approached because if he had run, that would have proved he was the murderer, so he had no choice but to bluff his way out of it.

Some say he couldn't run, because he would run right into the arms of PC Neil.

So, instead, he waited for Paul and a minute or so later when they left the scene together there was no worry at all anymore about walking into Neil, who - at that point - had only come closer. And a 'Neil scam' would have been as easy as a 'Mizen scam', so no worries there either...

[Fiver]

You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him

Lechmere, the “concerned passerby,” who just happened to be standing alone... in the dark ... near Nichols’ bleeding breathing body, is looking more and more like a man with a very guilty conscience... and an even guiltier set of actions..

You have yet to show the slightest bit of evidence against Cross.

Lechmere called Paul over, refused to help when it mattered, tried to send Paul off alone, and then lied to a policeman to get away without being checked....

If that doesn’t scream guilt, what does?
It's time to face reality... This isn’t “concerned passerby” behavior. This is get-out of jail free card behavior.

The Baron

* Cross called Paul over. PC Neil called two other constables over. Davis called over two men working nearby. Diemshutz called over a whole club. PC Watkins called over a watchman, Morris. Thomas Bowyer called over his boss, John McCarthy. PC Andrews called over Isaac Jacobs.

Why is this a sign of guilt for Cross, but not for the other men?

* How can Cross not wanting to prop up the body be refusing to help? If Nichols was dead, it wouldn't help. If Nichols was wounded or injured, propping her up could only make things worse.

* Cross didn't send Paul off on his own. PC Neil did send other men off while he stayed with the body. So did PC Watkin. And John McCarthy.

Why is this a sign of guilt for Cross, but not for the other men?

* If Cross lied to PC Mizen, then so did Robert Paul. Why is this a sign of guilt for Cross, but not for the other man?