Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed he could have given himself a cast iron or close to cast iron alibi if he'd adjusted him times to match Paul's.



Sh*t I best cover up these wounds to avoid attracting attention to them, then I'll attract the attention of the first passer-by to my handiwork... Great plan.



Mmmm I've an easy opportunity to make my escape, you go up Hanbury Street, I'll go along Old Montague... cover more ground improve our chances. However I'll go with you so I can find out where you work and make sure I dump a body there next week to implicate you for grassing me to the newspapers, even though as this juncture in time you actually haven't made your report yet.. but you will, I'm sure you will.



He didn't mention someone running off to give the coppers doubt in his guilt... I think this is because he wanted a couple of books, a fakeumentary and dozens of YouTube videos made about him some 130 years later so his Great Great Granddaughter could falsely adopt his birth name and wander around the internet claiming 'Lechmere dunnit' at every opportunity.




Thick as a whale omelette...

And yet there are some that still think this guy was guilty? How has this happened? Why have so many jumped onto this bandwagon? It’s all very strange…you’d think that people were being biased wouldn’t you?

[Geddy2112]

And yet there are some that still think this guy was guilty? How has this happened? Why have so many jumped onto this bandwagon? It’s all very strange…you’d think that people were being biased wouldn’t you?

No just ignorant. I do love the point that he goes with Paul to find out where he works so he can dump a body there the following week because he dobbed him into the papers. Even though at that juncture in time the interview had not happened and the report had not been published. It's called Stow b/s. I wonder at times with tigers, bagels, Nichola Bulley, gravestones and flesh in Doveton St drains he actually, according to my dear mother should put his brain in gear before engaging his mouth...

[scottnapa]

since Paul and Cross walk to work nightly, I would have thought they would have crossed paths many times, yet they do not recognized each other. Curious.

[Fiver]

since Paul and Cross walk to work nightly, I would have thought they would have crossed paths many times, yet they do not recognized each other. Curious.

They weren't headed to the same destination and they didn't leave for work at the same time. If not for Cross spotting a body and slowing down, at best Robert Paul would have seen Cross' back in the distance in poor lighting and Cross couldn't have seen a man walking behind him unless he turned around. Paul also said he was running late, so this wasn't his usual time to walk down Bucks-row. (Cross' testimony makes it unclear if he was running late before he found the body or because he found the body.)

Their routes would never had them approaching each other from opposite directions, so they never would have seen each other's faces.

[The Baron]

When we think about murder, especially in the case of Jack the Ripper, we’re not just dealing with the facts. We’re stepping into the psychology of crime itself, the way it unfolds in the shadows.

Crime isn’t neat, predictable, or logical. It’s chaotic. It’s driven by emotion, impulse, and, often, a deep psychological need for control, the ultimate power over life and death.

Serial killers don’t just commit crimes, they evolve. They adapt, learn from mistakes, and refine their methods over time.

The real mystery isn’t just the act of murder itself but the mind that orchestrates it.

If Lechmere was the Ripper, then what we’re looking at isn’t just a crime, it’s a moment of interruption. A murder thrown off course.

When Paul arrives at the scene, the killer is suddenly forced into a position of vulnerability. It’s in moments like this, when a murderer is caught between finishing the act and needing to escape, that we see their true nature.

Time distorts in such moments. What should have been a controlled, deliberate killing becomes rushed, frantic.
Decisions are made in seconds, how to hide the evidence, how to reshape the story.

Look at Nichols’ wounds. Why weren’t they as brutal as later victims’? Why did the Ripper leave the scene without fully displaying his 'work'? Because he didn’t have time. He was interrupted. The satisfaction he might have sought was cut short by reality crashing in, by the sudden need to cover his tracks.

That’s why Lechmere stepping forward to meet Paul isn’t the act of an innocent man. He understands how perception works, how appearances can be manipulated.

Serial killers thrive on control, control over their victims, over their environment, and, most crucially, over the story that will be told about them.

For the Ripper to have killed and disappeared so effortlessly, he had to know the area intimately. He had to be confident, audacious, certain that he could blend back into the city without suspicion.

Lechmere, in his casual, almost indifferent demeanor, fits that profile. Not just because he had the opportunity, but because his mindset suggests he saw himself as untouchable. The streets were his stage, and he was directing the play.

By positioning himself as the one who “found” the body, he wasn’t just giving a statement, he was shaping the narrative.

And for a police force desperate for answers, it was easy to let that version of events slide. Had Paul never spoken up, Lechmere might have faded into the background, an unnoticed figure in a case that remains unsolved.

When we stop looking at the case as a list of events and start seeing it as a psychological puzzle, a story of control, timing, and human behavior, the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper doesn’t just make sense...

It becomes the most logical answer.

The real question isn’t could he have done it? It’s, when you look at the psychology of it all...

How could he not have been the one to do it?



The Baron

[scottnapa]

They weren't headed to the same destination and they didn't leave for work at the same time.
Both statements are true. Thank you. Over the course of a year, why would they not meet? Cross lives 8 minutes away from Buck's Row on Doveton St , Paul 2 minutes away on Foster. St. On the evening that matters they are both concerned about being late, I suppose they work 5 or 6 days a week. I would think over the course of a year Paul and Cross would easily have 200 nights where both of them are walking to work. Sometimes they are early sometimes a bit behind. On this night Paul is a minute of two behind Cross. I would think if we have them on the streets 200 times, there will be times they arrive at the same time.

[Fiver]

They weren't headed to the same destination and they didn't leave for work at the same time.
Both statements are true. Thank you. Over the course of a year, why would they not meet? Cross lives 8 minutes away from Buck's Row on Doveton St , Paul 2 minutes away on Foster. St. On the evening that matters they are both concerned about being late, I suppose they work 5 or 6 days a week. I would think over the course of a year Paul and Cross would easily have 200 nights where both of them are walking to work. Sometimes they are early sometimes a bit behind. On this night Paul is a minute of two behind Cross. I would think if we have them on the streets 200 times, there will be times they arrive at the same time.

Charles Cross had moved to 22 Doveton Street on the 11th or 12th of June. Nichols was murdered on the morning of August 31st.

It is clear from the statements of both Robert Paul and Charles Cross that they had never met before that night. There was no reason for either of them, let alone both, to lie about that.

[Fiver]

When Paul arrives at the scene, the killer is suddenly forced into a position of vulnerability. It’s in moments like this, when a murderer is caught between finishing the act and needing to escape, that we see their true nature.

Time distorts in such moments. What should have been a controlled, deliberate killing becomes rushed, frantic.
Decisions are made in seconds, how to hide the evidence, how to reshape the story.

The Baron

That is the opposite of what happened. The Nichols murder was not controlled, it was frenzied overkill. For Cross to be the killer he has to snap out of that extreme emotion and start becoming controlled and deliberate. Rippermere has to clean his hands and the knife, stow the knife and cleaning rag, then move into the street without being seen or heard by Robert Paul. Then Rippermere has to slow his rushed breathing and his rapidly beating heart, calm his adrenaline rush and appear perfectly normal to Robert Paul in a matter of seconds, while also not showing the incredible tension and uncertainty of not knowing if Paul had seen or heard him in the act.

And then Paul flinches away, tries to avoid Rippermere. Why would Rippermere think anything other than that Paul knows too much and needs to be silenced immediately?

[drstrange169]

"I would think if we have them on the streets 200 times, there will be times they arrive at the same time."

Actually, it was under 60 times. And how many of those did Cross try different routes to work out the best? How many of those few times might he have seen Paul as a distant figure and paid no attention to him? Again, the avialable evidence favours Cross not condemn him.

[The Baron]

Lechmere was in the right place at the right time to 'find' Nichols.. and why he didn’t run into Paul earlier..

Suddenly he was not in the right place and not at the right time!

Incredible! It’s almost like he’s a black hole in the narrative, bending time and space to make sure everything conveniently fits!

It just happened!



The Baron

[John Wheat]

Lechmere was in the right place at the right time to 'find' Nichols.. and why he didn’t run into Paul earlier..

Suddenly he was not in the right place and not at the right time!

Incredible! It’s almost like he’s a black hole in the narrative, bending time and space to make sure everything conveniently fits!

It just happened!



The Baron

That's absolute rubbish.

[The Baron]

That's absolute rubbish.

Whoa, look who’s back! I was getting worried there for a
second starting to think maybe you’d been kidnapped by a band of rogue squirrels or something..


Missed your usual ‘That’s rubbish’.. honestly, my posts felt so empty without it!



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

since Paul and Cross walk to work nightly, I would have thought they would have crossed paths many times, yet they do not recognized each other. Curious.

Paul was running late. Cross was only behind time because of co-finding the body. So on a normal day their paths would not have passed.

[Geddy2112]

When we think about murder, especially in the case of Jack the Ripper, we’re not just dealing with the facts. We’re stepping into the psychology of crime itself, the way it unfolds in the shadows.

Crime isn’t neat, predictable, or logical. It’s chaotic. It’s driven by emotion, impulse, and, often, a deep psychological need for control, the ultimate power over life and death.

Serial killers don’t just commit crimes, they evolve. They adapt, learn from mistakes, and refine their methods over time.

Which university did you get your Psychology degree from? Got mine from Durham and you are talking poop here...

Look at Nichols’ wounds. Why weren’t they as brutal as later victims’? Why did the Ripper leave the scene without fully displaying his 'work'? Because he didn’t have time. He was interrupted. The satisfaction he might have sought was cut short by reality crashing in, by the sudden need to cover his tracks.

Why did killer Cross hide the wounds to stop anyone noticing them, then stop the first passer-by to erm... notice them?

Serial killers thrive on control, control over their victims, over their environment, and, most crucially, over the story that will be told about them.

For the Ripper to have killed and disappeared so effortlessly, he had to know the area intimately. He had to be confident, audacious, certain that he could blend back into the city without suspicion.

Same as above which University?

Lechmere, in his casual, almost indifferent demeanor, fits that profile. Not just because he had the opportunity, but because his mindset suggests he saw himself as untouchable. The streets were his stage, and he was directing the play.

By positioning himself as the one who “found” the body, he wasn’t just giving a statement, he was shaping the narrative.

And again, which University?

And for a police force desperate for answers, it was easy to let that version of events slide. Had Paul never spoken up, Lechmere might have faded into the background, an unnoticed figure in a case that remains unsolved.

Again, however this time was it in Criminology?

When we stop looking at the case as a list of events and start seeing it as a psychological puzzle, a story of control, timing, and human behavior, the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper doesn’t just make sense...

No it does not. He acted completely like an innocent witness. The real killer escaped a few minutes before Cross got there, it's that simple.

It becomes the most logical answer.

It does not, behave yourself.