Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[FrankO]

Paul didn’t need to dash off to the hospital like some kind of panic driven action hero to prove he thought Nichols was still alive. Just because he didn’t follow this fictional script of what he should have done doesn’t mean he lacked urgency or concern. In fact, it shows that Paul was thinking rationally and prioritizing getting help where it was most accessible.

He was calm enough to know that finding a policeman, a trained professional, would have been far more effective than blindly running off to the hospital and losing valuable minutes.

Ah, yes, of course! Paul should have run to the hospital and what exactly? Walk in and casually announce, “There’s a woman who might still be breathing”? Brilliant. I’m sure that would’ve sent the hospital into a frenzy, right? Maybe they would’ve sent someone running with a stretcher and dropped everything based on that incredibly vague report...

“Quick, everyone, someone out there might be alive!” They’d have probably called in the whole team, doctors, nurses, a janitor, a few confused delivery men, all because Paul’s highly detailed description was so convincing, they would have just magically known exactly what to do with zero details!

And God forbid Paul use his time more wisely by getting actual professionals to the scene, police officers who could, you know, assess the situation, get help on the way, and possibly save Nichols in the time that it took to run to the hospital and back. But nop, let’s just assume the best course of action was to run off and leave the scene even more chaotic. Perfect logic.

Maybe Paul didn’t believe running to the hospital was the best way to handle the situation. Maybe he thought getting a policeman, someone who can immediately assess the scene and call for help, was the smartest move. Just because Paul didn’t do exactly what you imagined doesn’t mean he didn’t think Nichols was still breathing. It means he used logic, not panic, and went for the most practical solution.

So no, this whole argument falls apart because the idea that not running to the hospital means Paul didn’t believe she was breathing is invalid. It’s the exact opposite:

He stayed composed enough to handle the situation in a measured way, and that’s the mark of someone who takes an emergency seriously, not someone who falls apart in the face of stress.

I don’t know who the one with the fictional script is, Baron. Did I ever say that Paul was panic driven? Did I ever say he fell apart in the face of stress? Did I ever say he should/must/would have been blindly running off to the hospital? Did I ever say that Paul should have done things in a chaotic manner or leave things more chaotic than you suppose they already were?

No. So, you’re the one that’s thinking that up.

And why in the name of heaven should a whole hospital or even some part of it be sent into a frenzy when someone comes in & tells them there’s an unresponsive woman lying in a nearby street, who, at best, is only very faintly breathing?

Beats me. I wouldn’t have wanted to be treated there, that’s for sure.

This is all I have to say. I'll leave you to it & wish you good luck trying to convince anybody that Paul’s actions fit the actions of a man who was convinced Nichols was still alive and salvageable.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Paul didn’t need to dash off to the hospital like some kind of panic driven action hero to prove he thought Nichols was still alive. Just because he didn’t follow this fictional script of what he should have done doesn’t mean he lacked urgency or concern. In fact, it shows that Paul was thinking rationally and prioritizing getting help where it was most accessible.

He was calm enough to know that finding a policeman, a trained professional, would have been far more effective than blindly running off to the hospital and losing valuable minutes.

Ah, yes, of course! Paul should have run to the hospital and what exactly? Walk in and casually announce, “There’s a woman who might still be breathing”? Brilliant. I’m sure that would’ve sent the hospital into a frenzy, right? Maybe they would’ve sent someone running with a stretcher and dropped everything based on that incredibly vague report...

“Quick, everyone, someone out there might be alive!” They’d have probably called in the whole team, doctors, nurses, a janitor, a few confused delivery men, all because Paul’s highly detailed description was so convincing, they would have just magically known exactly what to do with zero details!

And God forbid Paul use his time more wisely by getting actual professionals to the scene, police officers who could, you know, assess the situation, get help on the way, and possibly save Nichols in the time that it took to run to the hospital and back. But nop, let’s just assume the best course of action was to run off and leave the scene even more chaotic. Perfect logic.

Maybe Paul didn’t believe running to the hospital was the best way to handle the situation. Maybe he thought getting a policeman, someone who can immediately assess the scene and call for help, was the smartest move. Just because Paul didn’t do exactly what you imagined doesn’t mean he didn’t think Nichols was still breathing. It means he used logic, not panic, and went for the most practical solution.

So no, this whole argument falls apart because the idea that not running to the hospital means Paul didn’t believe she was breathing is invalid. It’s the exact opposite:

He stayed composed enough to handle the situation in a measured way, and that’s the mark of someone who takes an emergency seriously, not someone who falls apart in the face of stress.



The Baron

OK, let's award Paul a posthumous OBE, and move on to discuss the actual subject matter of this thread.

[The Baron]

Paul didn’t need to dash off to the hospital like some kind of panic driven action hero to prove he thought Nichols was still alive. Just because he didn’t follow this fictional script of what he should have done doesn’t mean he lacked urgency or concern. In fact, it shows that Paul was thinking rationally and prioritizing getting help where it was most accessible.

He was calm enough to know that finding a policeman, a trained professional, would have been far more effective than blindly running off to the hospital and losing valuable minutes.

Ah, yes, of course! Paul should have run to the hospital and what exactly? Walk in and casually announce, “There’s a woman who might still be breathing”? Brilliant. I’m sure that would’ve sent the hospital into a frenzy, right? Maybe they would’ve sent someone running with a stretcher and dropped everything based on that incredibly vague report...

“Quick, everyone, someone out there might be alive!” They’d have probably called in the whole team, doctors, nurses, a janitor, a few confused delivery men, all because Paul’s highly detailed description was so convincing, they would have just magically known exactly what to do with zero details!

And God forbid Paul use his time more wisely by getting actual professionals to the scene, police officers who could, you know, assess the situation, get help on the way, and possibly save Nichols in the time that it took to run to the hospital and back. But nop, let’s just assume the best course of action was to run off and leave the scene even more chaotic. Perfect logic.

Maybe Paul didn’t believe running to the hospital was the best way to handle the situation. Maybe he thought getting a policeman, someone who can immediately assess the scene and call for help, was the smartest move. Just because Paul didn’t do exactly what you imagined doesn’t mean he didn’t think Nichols was still breathing. It means he used logic, not panic, and went for the most practical solution.

So no, this whole argument falls apart because the idea that not running to the hospital means Paul didn’t believe she was breathing is invalid. It’s the exact opposite:

He stayed composed enough to handle the situation in a measured way, and that’s the mark of someone who takes an emergency seriously, not someone who falls apart in the face of stress.



The Baron

[FrankO]

Who knows if she could’ve slipped further into unconsciousness or died in the minutes it took to run there and back?

And this couldn’t have happened if the went for a policeman?? Furthermore, did he know where they would find a policeman??

On the other hand, going to find a policeman, which is what Paul did, was actually the right call. Why? Because the policeman was a trained authority who could assess the situation more effectively, get proper help, and ensure that immediate medical attention could be summoned.

And where did the police go for proper help? Right, Dr. Llewellyn, although at that point in time, because of going for a PC instead of the hospital they’d unnecessarily lost an extra 3 minutes or so and Nichols was certainly dead. Right call? I don't think so.

What exactly would Paul have done at the hospital anyway, start administering medical treatment himself? Show up, burst through the door, and shout, “I think I found a woman who’s possibly breathing!

If he really believed she was still breathing and salvageable, this is exactly what he would have done. But no, he let Lechmere shut him down, and walked on with the plan to tell the first policeman they’d come across. Not running, mind you. Walking, as in: no urgency.

Quick, someone get me a scalpel!” Should he have grabbed the nearest doctor by the collar and yelled, “I know CPR... kind of... Let’s see what happens!” Maybe he could’ve had a dramatic moment where he looked around and declared, “I’m going to save her!” only to realize he’s never even taken a first aid class.

What?!? He goes to the hospital and then suggests that he's the one who's going to treat her?!? Seriously??...

The only responsible thing was to get professionals involved, which is exactly what he did.

I’m not saying he didn’t do the responsible thing. Based on the evidence, he and Lechmere did exactly what can be expected. They apparently didn’t think there was much urgency, if any, so they walked on and told Mizen what they’d seen, without conveying much urgency, if any.

So, if he’s convinced she’s still living, he should’ve just forced Lechmere to help, right?

If he’s convinced she’s still living and salvageable, then he should have gone for medical help straight away – with or without Lechmere’s help. But I guess he wasn't. At least, that's what the evidence points to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

well he actually killed a kid with his cart. sorry herlock couldnt resist.; )

Damn! I’d forgotten about that Abby.

[Geddy2112]

Running to the hospital would’ve meant abandoning the woman who might still be breathing and leaving her without authority in that critical moment. Does that sound like the best choice? No. In that time, a lot could’ve happened. Who knows if she could’ve slipped further into unconsciousness or died in the minutes it took to run there and back?

Plain and simple they both were running late for work at this juncture and that was the most important thing to them, not some dead or drunk nobody lying in the street.

On the other hand, going to find a policeman, which is what Paul did, was actually the right call. Why? Because the policeman was a trained authority who could assess the situation more effectively, get proper help, and ensure that immediate medical attention could be summoned.

NO!... Paul and Cross did...

The only responsible thing was to get professionals involved, which is exactly what he did.

THEY did.

What did the other first finders do in the C5 cases? Can you remind us?

[John Wheat]

This thread gets more and more pointless. Cross didn't murder anyone.

[The Baron]

Running to the hospital would’ve meant abandoning the woman who might still be breathing and leaving her without authority in that critical moment. Does that sound like the best choice? No. In that time, a lot could’ve happened. Who knows if she could’ve slipped further into unconsciousness or died in the minutes it took to run there and back?

On the other hand, going to find a policeman, which is what Paul did, was actually the right call. Why? Because the policeman was a trained authority who could assess the situation more effectively, get proper help, and ensure that immediate medical attention could be summoned.

What exactly would Paul have done at the hospital anyway, start administering medical treatment himself? Show up, burst through the door, and shout, “I think I found a woman who’s possibly breathing! Quick, someone get me a scalpel!” Should he have grabbed the nearest doctor by the collar and yelled, “I know CPR... kind of... Let’s see what happens!” Maybe he could’ve had a dramatic moment where he looked around and declared, “I’m going to save her!” only to realize he’s never even taken a first aid class. Genius

The only responsible thing was to get professionals involved, which is exactly what he did.

In short: it was far smarter, more practical, and far more useful to find a policeman than to abandon the scene for a hospital that would take even longer to act. What good would running off to a hospital have done, when the best chance was to call for help immediately and bring the authorities in on the scene?

Because in a high stress, potentially dangerous situation, Paul should’ve just forced his way into a decision with a stranger who was standing there, alone... in the dark... Sure, that’s how you handle things, throw logic, caution, and basic decency right out the window. Why bother with communication or teamwork when you can just bulldoze your way through, right? So, if he’s convinced she’s still living, he should’ve just forced Lechmere to help, right?

Because that’s totally how emergency situations work, no need for communication or working together, just strongarm your way into a decision like an action hero, right?

What kind of person wouldn’t take charge of someone else’s choice in a stressful situation?!



The Baron

[FrankO]

Lechmere:

"Witness having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so"

Lechmere:

"The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."

Eastern Argus of September 8:
Feeling the hands cold and limp, I said "I believe she's dead;" her face felt warm. The other man put his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if it is." The man suggested that we should move her, but I would not touch her. He then tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.

Echo of September 3:
He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart and remarked, "I think she is breathing, but very little, if she is." He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him." When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left.

Illustrated Police News of September 8:
Feeling the hands cold and limp witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is." The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her." The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.

Star of September 3:
Witness took the woman's hand, and finding it cold said, "I believe she's dead." The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little." He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him." Before they left the body the other man tried to pull the clothes over the woman's knees, but they did not seem as though they would come down.

Do you see how the Eastern Argus actually states that Paul only tried to pull down the clothes after his suggestion to move Nichols? And how the other at least suggest that he did that after the suggestion to set her upricht? Probably not.

Paul:

"He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint"

Times of September 18:
Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. 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. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.

Do you see that this version actually states that the touching of the breast was when he was in the act of pulling down her clothes? Probably not.

What exactly do you expect Paul to have done?

For starters, as I’ve said before, he could have run to the hospital. I’m sure he knew it was there and it was not even 200 metres away. Wouldn’t he have found medical help there?

He observed, reacted, and suggested action, he felt breath, tried to sit her up but was shut down by Lechmere,...

Was shut down by Lechmere?? Why would he let himself be shut down by anyone, if he was convinced the woman was still living and salvageable? What kind of pushover would he be?

At the inquest, Paul himself didn't even bother to mention the only action he proposed. Bottom line remains that action (or lack thereof) speaks louder than words.

[The Baron]

As I said before, there's no doubt that Paul stated that he felt a slight movement of the chest. So, the only thing he possible did as a result of that was suggest that he and Lechmere sat her up. But, after Lechmere refused, he did no other thing to follow up on the movement he'd felt, according to the evidence.

According to Paul's evidence, it was while he was pulling down the dress that he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement. According to Lechmere, Paul tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs before they left, which seems to correspond with Paul's own testimony. Based on this, it's no sure thing that Paul suggested to sit her up right after pulling the clothes down, but rather before.

I'm sure you'll see some contradiction or contortion of the evidence on my part (do your best!), but the bottom line is that Paul, at best, did very little as a result of the fact that he felt a slight movement of the chest - if anything at all. And, therefore, the only conclusion we can draw from the evidence, is that Paul didn't think much of the movement he felt, if anything at all.

Lechmere:

"Witness having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so"

Lechmere:

"The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."

Paul:

"He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint"


What exactly do you expect Paul to have done? Reanimate her like a Victorian doctor performing a dramatic, thunderstorm-inspired resurrection? Should he have pulled out a syringe and shouted, “By Jove, she’s breathing!” while dramatically slapping her face?
Paul wasn’t some 19th century Frankenstein. He felt a breath, immediately suggested sitting her up, and when Lechmere refused to help, what was he supposed to do? Start a cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the spot, as if he had a full medical kit and was ready to play the hero? Maybe pull out a pocket defibrillator, just in case?

And you call that doing 'very little'?
Then you try to preemptively dismiss the obvious contradictions, as if acknowledging the mess somehow makes it less embarrassing, or as if pointing out the contradictions yourself magically makes them acceptable. Here is the truth: this argument isn’t just weak, it’s dead on arrival.

The reality is, Paul did what he could. He observed, reacted, and suggested action, he felt breath, tried to sit her up but was shut down by Lechmere, Paul then reported it to the police and was furious when they didn’t act.

But what’s Lechmere’s excuse? Guess he was too busy waiting for an ambulance that wasn’t going to show up.

Time to quit pretending like Paul could’ve done something out of a medical textbook in that moment. It was Lechmere who couldn’t be bothered to help.



The Baron

[JeffHamm]

Unlike some others here, I don't find it incredible or suspicious that they didn't see the wounds. Three constables, a medical man, and the horse slaughterers were all at the scene shortly afterwards with every opportunity to judge the ambient lighting conditions (far better than we can ever hope) and none of them 'called out' or challenged Cross or Paul on their inability to see the neck wound.

Due to the so-called "Purkinje Effect," our eyes don't see longer wavelengths in the dark, and red is the hardest color of all to see--we don't have the 'rods' for it, and brown isn't much better.

Her frock was brown. If she's flat on her back, with the light source nothing more than distant gaslight, her neck is going to be in a recess between her head and her chest. Her neck, the wound, the color of blood, the collar and upper portion of her brown dress could easily have all been one indistinct blotch of monochrome.

And if either Paul or Cross could see the neck wound the other would have seen it, too, so if they're lying, they are in cahoots about not seeing it, which I find difficult to accept.

Good points rj. I don't find it suspicious either, and for the reasons you mention above, I don't find it at all hard to believe they didn't see her injuries either, particularly if their examination was very short (things like I mentioned earlier). It becomes harder for me to accept they could have done a long examination of her and not realized her throat had been slashed open to the extent it was though, but in my view, that's just another pointer to the idea their examination was really little more than maybe touching her hand and pulling down her dress a bit. Discussions of sitting her up, etc, were probably held prior to those actions, and perhaps Paul fixed her dress because the two of them had decided not to do anything further than leave this to the police to deal with and so to spare her modesty, he adjusts her dress a bit. With it caught underneath her, though, he does what he can, and off the two of them go.

In the end, it seems to me that at the time they probably thought she was nothing more than drunk and passed out. Something, however, does seem to have "creeped them out" given their comments to Mizen about her possibly being dead, but even then their comments were clearly half-hearted at the time based upon PC Mizen's less than enthusiastic response, and also their "report and move on" rather than making a bigger deal of it. Sure, after they hear she was dead, the fact that they said as much is going to strike them as an example of "but I said that she might be" while overlooking the fact that when they said it they really weren't convinced of it at the time - so really a "lucky guess", but at the time their actual belief of "she's probably drunk" would have been what was coming across, and which would explain PC Mizen's response to their information. (I think the same principle explains PC Mizen's claim they said he was wanted by a policeman when they probably just said he was wanted - when PC Mizen arrives he was wanted by a policeman, and so PC Mizen is likely to re-interpret what they said as meaning he was wanted by a policeman, when Cross/Lechmere and Paul just meant there was a situation that needed him).

Not sure if I'm being very clear there, but the idea is that it is likely at the time they spoke with Mizen their belief was she was just passed out, but they mentioned the possibility of her being dead as something about the whole affair struck them as strange in some way. Then, when they hear she was dead, they recall things to fit - we said she was dead after all, but forget that at the time they weren't really putting that forward as probable. Memory updates with new information, and both of those examples (the "certainty" of her being dead, and PC Mizen's statement of being needed by a policeman), are probably best viewed as examples of this very common effect. It's what makes eye-witness testimony so frustratingly unreliable when it comes down to details - and it is the details that are often so important.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

And we know that he didn’t kill anyone.

well he actually killed a kid with his cart. sorry herlock couldnt resist.; )

[Herlock Sholmes]

And we know that he didn’t kill anyone.

[Fiver]

But our killer Jack only killed 'prostitutes.' That means he is not an opportunistic killer. He has a type, he has to kill a certain type of women. To be an opportunistic killer he would not discriminate between victims and killed whoever came across his path. This is not Jack, this is not Charles Cross. Sorry...

Going to have to agree with Baron on this point. An opportunistic killer could still have a type. We also don't know if the Ripper had a type - prostitutes could have just been the easiest targets. There are several examples of serial killers who mostly killed sex workers, but also went for other targets of opportunity, like hitchhikers.

But Lechmerians often turn him into Schrodinger's suspect - both a calculating planner and an impulsive opportunist at the same time.

They insist Cross is an opportunist for Tabram and Nichols, but deliberately planned the Chapman murder to be near Robert Paul's place of work. Rippermere also calculatedly changes his place and time of murder for Stride and Eddowes, yet goes back to opportunistic for the Kelly murder.

[Geddy2112]

So before we start dismissing Lechmere as a non-suspect based on his daily commute, let’s remember this: serial killers thrive in these narrow timeframes, using their ordinary lives as a cover for their extraordinary crimes. Lechmere had the perfect cover, and anyone who dismisses this possibility outright is failing to grasp the opportunistic nature of many serial killers.

But our killer Jack only killed 'prostitutes.' That means he is not an opportunistic killer. He has a type, he has to kill a certain type of women. To be an opportunistic killer he would not discriminate between victims and killed whoever came across his path. This is not Jack, this is not Charles Cross. Sorry...