The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

If you look at what people reported to the inquest, you'll see Neil had to note whether he saw anybody in his report. Thain had to note whether he saw anybody.

"Had to note"? What do you mean, had to note? Of course the PC:s had a duty to take note of what they experienced. Not necessarily in writing, though.

The various watchmen from all around the area on that night were specifically asked if they saw or heard anything. The horse slaughterers were asked if the saw or heard anything. Door to door knock ups were instituted to see if ANYBODY saw or heard anything.

The door to door knock ups were very modest, it would seem. But overall, yes, the PC:s and watchmen were asked if they had seen anybody leaving Buckd Row to evoke attention.

Basic 101 of police investigation is to ask EVERY witness if they saw any thing. It seems inconceivable to me that Mizen would not be asked the same question.

Not to worry, Dust - he WAS doubtlessly asked, if he could be reached. And there is nothing to sugest he couldnīt.

The first obvious question for an experienced officer like Neil to ask, 20 years service at that point, would be, "Did you pass anybody on you way here?"

Ah - the "I-know-exactly-what-Neil-must-have-said" thing again; Conjure up something that Neil could have said that will make you right, and the battle is won.
If it was only that easy!
I could of course say that Neil having so many years in the trade, would bank on his colleague informing him if there had met a ybody on his way without Neil having to ask.
But why would I join this type of charade?

Add to that, all the policemen Mizen came into contact with were from J Division and would have known each other, the obvious question to Mizen would be, "What are you doing here?" To which Mizen would have replied ... what?

More of the same. When Mizen arrived at Browns there WERE no other PC:s, so who should ask? And Neil supposedly knew that he himself had called upon Mizen with his lamp.
When Mizen returned, it would have been pretty obvious what he did there: he brought the ambulance. And if he was asked WHY he had fetched it, he would perhaps answer "Because your colleague asked me to".

Moving on to the daytime, Neil tells the inquest he was alone and Mizen still does not correct him?

Neil says that he found the body himself. That is in accordance with the carmen not finding the body. And that was exactly what Mizen would have thought.

Neil said that he was not guided to the body by two men. That is in accordance with the carmen not finding the body. And that was exactly what Mizen would have thought.

If Neil has said that he WAS directed to the body by two men, THEN there would have been reason for Mizen to react.

That day, stories about two men being around the crime scene start surfacing, Neil flatly denies the story and still Mizen doesn't correct the situation. In fact quite the opposite he is reported as flatly denying seeing two men.

Neil denies that he was guided to the body by two men.

Sunday morning the biggest selling Sunday newspaper features Paul's story and still Mizen says nothing?

The police did NOT believe Pauls story. It was denied by Neil, for instance.
To begin with, neither of us knows if Mizen ever read the article. If he did, he would think "But that is not correct, the carman did not find the body" - and then he would find that his colleagues were of the exact same meaning.

It is not until we have a situation where it is accepted that the carmen, and NOT Neil were the finders of the body, that Mizen would have been faced with something that did not dovetail with his own experience.

No, something is seriously amiss here.

Yes, but what could it be? Insight? Afterthought? Knowledge?

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

"wouldn't Mizen not mentioning Paul and cross seem to corroborate his version of what happened?"

If you look at what people reported to the inquest, you'll see Neil had to note whether he saw anybody in his report. Thain had to note whether he saw anybody. The various watchmen from all around the area on that night were specifically asked if they saw or heard anything. The horse slaughterers were asked if the saw or heard anything. Door to door knock ups were instituted to see if ANYBODY saw or heard anything.

Basic 101 of police investigation is to ask EVERY witness if they saw any thing. It seems inconceivable to me that Mizen would not be asked the same question.

The first obvious question for an experienced officer like Neil to ask, 20 years service at that point, would be, "Did you pass anybody on you way here?"

Add to that, all the policemen Mizen came into contact with were from J Division and would have known each other, the obvious question to Mizen would be, "What are you doing here?" To which Mizen would have replied ... what?

Moving on to the daytime, Neil tells the inquest he was alone and Mizen still does not correct him?

That day, stories about two men being around the crime scene start surfacing, Neil flatly denies the story and still Mizen doesn't correct the situation. In fact quite the opposite he is reported as flatly denying seeing two men.

Sunday morning the biggest selling Sunday newspaper features Paul's story and still Mizen says nothing?

No, something is seriously amiss here.

Hi Dr. S
Thank you for the concise and well thought out reply. I totally see your point.
However, it was a total cluster F that morning, with all the witnesses involved, all the comings and goings etc. If Mizen thought Lech told him there was a PC who needed his help I could see where the confusion was and why he might have not mentioned the Carmen before the inquest. He might have thought they were already a known quantity.

But what we DO have is a PC on record under oath saying in no uncertain terms-Lech told me there was another PC needing my help.

Now the easiest explanation, is that it was a misunderstanding, because when he does get there-there is a PC needing his help! Mizen simply misunderstood.

NOt Lied. Not trying to cover his arse. misunderstood.
Why when there is a discrepancy-oh its the police lied. I don't get it I really don't.

It reminds me of the apron fiasco when the PC must of lied (or missed it), simply because people cant fathom a serial killer would wait an hour or so before dropping a clue somewhere.

Cop said this. witness said that. Its why no one at the time made a big deal out of it at the inquest-because at the time it WAS NO big deal. Just a misunderstanding.

Police at the time never even considered Lech a suspect-or the type of man who could even be a suspect. However, looking at it with fresh eyes, and a ton of research, and a going over lech with a fine toothed comb-its yet another discrepencey. Yes possibly one of the weaker aspects (IMHO) of the lech case, but yet another discrepancy that has to be explained away. Something that does NOT need to be done in the majority of "suspects".

Look, I think Lech is a weak suspect. I think they are all weak-some just less weak than others.

But it gets tiresome when the "police lied" mantra keeps being brought up-when there is NO evidence they did on any particular point-and when there is another, usually more logical answer.

[Patrick S]

I have a question. I know that Christer isn't speaking to me. So, I'll ask the ether and hope for a reply. Much as been made of Charles Allen Lechmere's "giving his name" as 'Cross' at the Nichols Inquest. Cross voluntarily appeared at the inquest on it's second day, Monday, September 3. His name is reported in The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, as 'Chas. Andrew Cross.

As the official records of the inquest have been lost, we are left to rely upon these newpaper reports. My question is this. The Telegraph is clearly, in most cases, not relating verbatim testimony. Most of Cross' testimony is - like much of the testimony - not a first person account. His testimony is summarized for the reader. His testimony that is reported as direct testimony is obvious:

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

The rest of the Cross testimony is reported along these lines:

He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.

We are now dealing with the conclusion - presented in Christer's documentary and elsewhere - that features prominently the "fact" that Lechmere gave his name as "Cross" at the inquest and this is the only time that he'd ever given that name in more than 100 dealings with "authority". An interesting point. However, how can anyone be certain that Lechmere was not asked if he was known by any other names and cited 'Cross' and that the Telegraph simply either simply confused the names or decided to use the name 'Cross' in its reporting of his testimony rather than Lechmere?

Clearly we have some issues with the spelling of names reported in the Telegraph:

Paul is Baul
Spratling is Spratley
Purkiss is Purkess
Thain is Thail
Mulshaw is Malshaw

One wonders if the reporter didn't say, "Lech...what? What did he say? Wait...what was the other name he gave? Cross. That's easier. I'll go with that. What's his middle name? I can't remember....startes with a 'A'....Andrew sounds about right."

It also seems that either the witness were not asked to spell their names or the reporter(s) simply didn't care about spelling.

[Abby Normal]

I have a question. I know that Christer isn't speaking to me. So, I'll ask the ether and hope for a reply. Much as been made of Charles Allen Lechmere's "giving his name" as 'Cross' at the Nichols Inquest. Cross voluntarily appeared at the inquest on it's second day, Monday, September 3. His name is reported in The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, as 'Chas. Andrew Cross.

As the official records of the inquest have been lost, we are left to rely upon these newpaper reports. My question is this. The Telegraph is clearly, in most cases, not relating verbatim testimony. Most of Cross' testimony is - like much of the testimony - not a first person account. His testimony is summarized for the reader. His testimony that is reported as direct testimony is obvious:

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

The rest of the Cross testimony is reported along these lines:

He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.

We are now dealing with the conclusion - presented in Christer's documentary and elsewhere - that features prominently the "fact" that Lechmere gave his name as "Cross" at the inquest and this is the only time that he'd ever given that name in more than 100 dealings with "authority". An interesting point. However, how can anyone be certain that Lechmere was not asked if he was known by any other names and cited 'Cross' and that the Telegraph simply either simply confused the names or decided to use the name 'Cross' in its reporting of his testimony rather than Lechmere?

Clearly we have some issues with the spelling of names reported in the Telegraph:

Paul is Baul
Spratling is Spratley
Purkiss is Purkess
Thain is Thail
Mulshaw is Malshaw

One wonders if the reporter didn't say, "Lech...what? What did he say? Wait...what was the other name he gave? Cross. That's easier. I'll go with that. What's his middle name? I can't remember....startes with a 'A'....Andrew sounds about right."

It also seems that either the witness were not asked to spell their names or the reporter(s) simply didn't care about spelling.

Hi Patrick

So, I'll ask the ether and hope for a reply

HAHA! Now that's funny!

That scenario might be possible. However, I do detect a certain amount of Lech not wanting to give as much personal info about himself as possible. It seems to me he might be trying to hide all this from family and close friends.
It may be because hes hiding something, or simply he dosnt want to get him or his family involved.

However, a simple explanation for the name swap may be: he started at pickfords under the name of Cross since he was still under the auspices of his step dad then. And so at work he goes by cross, and since this all had to do with him on his way to work, (or maybe the police inquired for him at Pickfords) Cross is simply what they all went with.

That being said there is no denying he used Lechmere everywhere else on record and seems to use Cross only here-again another discrepancy that needs to be explained. And I do find it odd.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick


HAHA! Now that's funny!

That scenario might be possible. However, I do detect a certain amount of Lech not wanting to give as much personal info about himself as possible.


What leads you to believe that? I'm interested because I'm finding that we have very little from the man himself.

It seems to me he might be trying to hide all this from family and close friends.
It may be because hes hiding something, or simply he dosnt want to get him or his family involved.

However, a simple explanation for the name swap may be: he started at pickfords under the name of Cross since he was still under the auspices of his step dad then. And so at work he goes by cross, and since this all had to do with him on his way to work, (or maybe the police inquired for him at Pickfords) Cross is simply what they all went with.

Agreed there may be very simple explanations. Any one of a hundred. Still, I'd like to know if there's a record of him giving the name 'Cross' at the inquest as OPPOSED to Lechmere.

That being said there is no denying he used Lechmere everywhere else on record and seems to use Cross only here-again another discrepancy that needs to be explained. And I do find it odd.

Well. There may be denying. Still looking for some confirmation that - other than what's in the Telegraph - that he gave the name Cross without mentioning Lechmere. I'm pretty sure that Paul didn't say his name was 'Baul'. So, I think it's worth asking. Remember, he gave is actual address. He gave his actual employer. It could be he gave his actual name.

[drstrange169]

I'm not oversold on it, but there is a third possiblity.
Namely, Xmere never gave any name in court.

Remember, Xmere was first brought into the court during Mizen's testimony.
After having been i.d.ed, a court offical may have said something like,
"For the record, the man identified, is Charles Allen Cross, a Pickfords carman, residing at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road".

Just a thought.

[Fisherman]

I'm not oversold on it, but there is a third possiblity.
Namely, Xmere never gave any name in court.

Remember, Xmere was first brought into the court during Mizen's testimony.
After having been i.d.ed, a court offical may have said something like,
"For the record, the man identified, is Charles Allen Cross, a Pickfords carman, residing at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road".

Just a thought.

I donīt see that as a realistic possiblity. All witnesses will reasonbly be required to state their names, addresses and occupation on their own. That is how they legally establish who they are, and something that cannot be done for them by anybody else. If they donīt do it on their own, how can they be held legally responsible afterwards?
I can readily accept that Lechmereīs name (the wrong one) and occupation could have been mentioned as he was brought in by a court official ("Your honour, this is carman Cross who is the man officer Mizen spoke to on the morning of Friday last"), but before Lechmere was allowed to offer his testimony, he would have been required to state his particulars himself on the stand.

I am no specialist on Victorian legal proceedings, but I dont think I can be far off the mark on this. I would appreciate of somebody with knowledge on the matter could confirm or deny what I am saying.

[harry]

I am of opinion that Cross was summond to attend the inquest,and that Cross was the name he was addressed by when called to give testimony,having given that name to police previously.
If someone wishes to understand the legal system at the time,I recommend
reading and trying to understand the Common Law that applied to murder cases.

[Fisherman]

I am of opinion that Cross was summond to attend the inquest,and that Cross was the name he was addressed by when called to give testimony,having given that name to police previously.
If someone wishes to understand the legal system at the time,I recommend
reading and trying to understand the Common Law that applied to murder cases.

I he WAS summoned, then why was he not summoned to day 1? During that session, PC Neil was allowed to get in the stand and tell the inquest that he was the first finder of the body in Bucks Row. So presumably, he was not on the police radar at the time leading up to this first day, Saturday the 1:st of September.

So if he WAS summoned, then he would have been summoned AFTER the first inquest day proceedings.

Luckily, we also know that the police at the evening of the 2:nd of September had opted for discarding Pauls story, reported on the very same day in Lloyds Weekly. That evening, Neil told the police that he had not been guided to the murder spot by two men - he had found the body alone, it was said.

If Lechmere had spoken to the police, they would have had corroboration of Pauls interview, and Neil would not have told the press that he was the finder.

Then we have the second inquest day, the 3:rd of September. And in steps Lechmere. On the evening before, the police were unaware of his existence - or at the very least, they did not accept Pauls story about him.

So how could the police have summoned him, Harry? Is it not infinitely much more in accordance with the known details to accept that he came forward without having been summoned?

Are you suggesting that the police stood on his doorstep on the evening of the 2:nd of September - although they had very clearly indicated that they did not believe the story Paul had told the press? And they did not haul Paul in, did they? The hunt for him only commenced with Lechmereīs appearance and the ensuing Chapman case.

So when did the police approach Lechmere? And why?

[Patrick S]

I'm not oversold on it, but there is a third possiblity.
Namely, Xmere never gave any name in court.

Remember, Xmere was first brought into the court during Mizen's testimony.
After having been i.d.ed, a court offical may have said something like,
"For the record, the man identified, is Charles Allen Cross, a Pickfords carman, residing at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road".

Just a thought.

A key distinction, I think. Lechmere wasn't 'brought into court'. He came to court. On his own. The police did't have his name, address, occupation, employer, or any physical description:

Paul referenced "a man".

Mizen refrenced "a carman (Paul - in that he identified himself, as such in Lloyd's the day before his inquest testimony)" and "another man", Lechmere.

Of course, by the time Mizen took the stand, Lechmere had already come to the police to volunteer testimony. He wasn't compelled. He wasn't dragged in. It wasn't that he 'had no choice', as we've heard from..um...some others......

[Patrick S]

I donīt see that as a realistic possiblity. All witnesses will reasonbly be required to state their names, addresses and occupation on their own. That is how they legally establish who they are, and something that cannot be done for them by anybody else. If they donīt do it on their own, how can they be held legally responsible afterwards?
I can readily accept that Lechmereīs name (the wrong one) and occupation could have been mentioned as he was brought in by a court official ("Your honour, this is carman Cross who is the man officer Mizen spoke to on the morning of Friday last"), but before Lechmere was allowed to offer his testimony, he would have been required to state his particulars himself on the stand.

I am no specialist on Victorian legal proceedings, but I dont think I can be far off the mark on this. I would appreciate of somebody with knowledge on the matter could confirm or deny what I am saying.

Wow. Again...this get's worse. This a man that Christer Holmgren has represented as JACK THE RIPPER (I'll not mention that he's allow alledged by Super Sleuth's to have been myriad other serial killers, as well)! We have established that you became suspicious of Lechmere and built this facade 'proving' his guilt based upon his giving a false name. And now we see you admit, although we have to wade through the B.S., that you really have no clue that he actually gave the name Cross. You simply assume he did becuase, well because that seems reasonable....? I think that reasonable assumptions may be somewhat more acceptable if you're say, trying to prove that Kevin the stockboy is lying about why he was late for work....but when selling a story about a man being the most infamous criminal in history?

I think I have my answer...thanks, Christer!

[Patrick S]

I he WAS summoned, then why was he not summoned to day 1? During that session, PC Neil was allowed to get in the stand and tell the inquest that he was the first finder of the body in Bucks Row. So presumably, he was not on the police radar at the time leading up to this first day, Saturday the 1:st of September.

DING! DING! You get a prize, Christer! You're finally catching on! And if Neil was ALLOWED to testify that HE and HE along discovred the body.....then it stands to reason that PC Mizen had - before Paul's interview made it into print the following day - kept his mouth shut about the men he'd met in Baker's Row........

So if he WAS summoned, then he would have been summoned AFTER the first inquest day proceedings.

How COULD he have been summoned? The police had no name, no physical description, no identifying characteristics at all. In fact...at the time Neil took the stand, it's clear that the police didn't know he existed at all. Rembember, Mizen had yet to tell anyone about meeting Lechmere and Paul and their - I would think rather significant information about finding a body on the street. He clearly came in, after reading Paul's account in Lloyd's. This was no bomb going off, driving Lechmere from hiding. Paul was content to take the starring role, referring to Lechmere only as 'a man' who stayed behine as he (Paul) went off to find a cop. Lechmere likely wanted his 15 mintues. THAT is most reasonable assumption as to WHY he came forward. Paul marginalized his role. OR.....Lechmere was simply a good citizen. He knew the inquest was happening, read Paul's account and decided to offer HIS account.....

Luckily, we also know that the police at the evening of the 2:nd of September had opted for discarding Pauls story, reported on the very same day in Lloyds Weekly. That evening, Neil told the police that he had not been guided to the murder spot by two men - he had found the body alone, it was said.

How is that LUCKY for you? Again, it's irrelevant. Clearly they weren't in a hurry to speak with Paul. He testified TWO WEEKS after Cross. You still have not offered a plausible reason for Lechmere to come forward - which he clearly did. The police not believing Paul...that's information that Lechmere could not have known. Thus, who cares? He came to the inquest after Paul's account was published. There was nothing in that account that DROVE HIM OUT of hiding or cast him in a negative light at all. He was 'a man'. That's it.

If Lechmere had spoken to the police, they would have had corroboration of Pauls interview, and Neil would not have told the press that he was the finder.


Then we have the second inquest day, the 3:rd of September. And in steps Lechmere. On the evening before, the police were unaware of his existence - or at the very least, they did not accept Pauls story about him.

So how could the police have summoned him, Harry? Is it not infinitely much more in accordance with the known details to accept that he came forward without having been summoned?

Are you trying to argue against your theory? I'm REALLY confused now.

Are you suggesting that the police stood on his doorstep on the evening of the 2:nd of September - although they had very clearly indicated that they did not believe the story Paul had told the press? And they did not haul Paul in, did they? The hunt for him only commenced with Lechmereīs appearance and the ensuing Chapman case.

So when did the police approach Lechmere? And why?

I have what I need! Thanks, again, Christer. Since we both seem to think that Lechmere came forward voluntarily....and, after all, why would he DO that if he'd killed Nichols and wanted to keep on killing which he did....for the rest of his life if we believe The Mizen Scam and all that......then I assume you're walking things back? Can we be friends now?

[caz]

1. Running.
Pros: He stood a chance of getting away from the murder site uncaught and unidentified.
Cons: He could have the newcomer seeing what had happened and yelling for the police, and if there were PC:s nearby, the game could be up.

Hi Fish,

So your only 'con' is still preferable to staying in the event that the newcomer had seen what had happened. If Paul had seen nothing suspicious, Lechmere was home dry merely by walking swiftly away; if Paul had seen foul play, the game would have been up - not could - if Lechmere stayed. He'd certainly have been forced to take Paul out of the equation with his knife to stop him yelling, and PC Neil wasn't far away by then.

2. Bluffing his way out.
Pros: He woud not stir any attention if he could do it. He would perhaps be able to walk along with the newcomer, effectively hiding from the police that he had been on his own on the streets.
Cons: Maybe he could not fool the newcomer. In such a case, he could always kill the newcomer too and make his escape. It could also be that it was a PC who came down the street. In such a case, he could also kill the PC and make his escape. Alternatively, if he thought that a hard task, he could always run for it from his position in the middle of the street, before the PC got close enough to make him out. The PC would of course notice him fleeing, but he would not necessarily give chase, since there was somebody lying in the street who needed attention.

Did you think of that? No?

Yep, you've convinced me: the cons of staying to face the music and trying to dance far outweigh the pros. Well done.

Now, Caz, please donīt tell me "But that would be DANGEROUS!" The whole business of killing out in the open street is actually dangerous, and if the killer had been squeamish, he would not have done it in the first place. This was a man who was willing to take his chances, and prepared to do the best of things, come what may.
He would have counted on standing a fair chance of being able to do what he came for undisturbed, but the risk of somebody coming upon him must have been obvious to him.

Saying that the proposition that he could have decided to bluff "goes out of the window" equals saying that nobody would bluff in a situation like this.

You may find that somewhat hard to substantiate.

I didn't say that. I said that his 'control' over the situation goes out of the window since Paul is an unknown quantity at the point when he has to decide whether to stay or go.

If the argument then boils down to him being the kind of crazy reckless killer who actually enjoys such a challenge, rather than playing it safe, I might have considered it a possibility once he had several successful murders under his belt, but not when we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend, which I submit would have taken priority over getting himself known so early on as the man who had discovered a victim. Lechmere would have needed, more than anyone else on the planet, not to be seen near the scene of any subsequent murders.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fish,

So your only 'con' is still preferable to staying in the event that the newcomer had seen what had happened. If Paul had seen nothing suspicious, Lechmere was home dry merely by walking swiftly away; if Paul had seen foul play, the game would have been up - not could - if Lechmere stayed. He'd certainly have been forced to take Paul out of the equation with his knife to stop him yelling, and PC Neil wasn't far away by then.

Then do the math, Caz- If Neil (or any other PC) was not far away, then not having been seen by Paul could be to little avail, if he shouted blue murder when he reached the body. From that second on, any person leaving the site would be at risk.
But you must also look at the evidence! The abdominal wounds were COVERED, Caz. The killer mwould not have done that as the oncoming Paul watched, would he?
And if he would not, where does that lead us? Exactly, it leads us to a killer who had decided to bluff it out BEFORE he knew who the newcomer was. The desicion was quite apparently already taken, Caz. He never prioritized running, he always banked on his own ability to pull the scam off. He may well have had a plan B, but that was all it was, going by the covering of the wounds: a plan B. Plan A was to bluff.

Yep, you've convinced me: the cons of staying to face the music and trying to dance far outweigh the pros. Well done.

Thank you, Caz. And you have long since convinced me that you no know absolutely nothing about how a psychopath works and what choices he makes.

I didn't say that. I said that his 'control' over the situation goes out of the window since Paul is an unknown quantity at the point when he has to decide whether to stay or go.

And still he opted for the covering of the wounds and the bluff, before he knew. Read the signs, Caz!

If the argument then boils down to him being the kind of crazy reckless killer who actually enjoys such a challenge, rather than playing it safe, I might have considered it a possibility once he had several successful murders under his belt, but not when we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend, which I submit would have taken priority over getting himself known so early on as the man who had discovered a victim. Lechmere would have needed, more than anyone else on the planet, not to be seen near the scene of any subsequent murders.

Iīm sure he would have preferred not to be seen in Bucks Row. But **** happens, as you will be aware of.
It was not as if he could pick and choose when to get cornered, was it? You seem to propose this - that the coolness and audacity of a bluffing killer is something the killer will always be given the choice when to produce. But this is not so - things can go awry at any station along the line, and you do not get to choose.
One more thing. You say that he would have needed more killings under his belt before he could produce something like the Mizen scam. I think there is every possibility that he already had that "advantage".
Another thing: You say that "we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend."
Sorry, but this is something we guess, and not something we know.
I think the Tabram murder was the Rippers. If so, he had ample time to cut the abdomen open, but only produced one tentative cut to the lower abdomen. So no clear intent on organ removal there!
Then we have Chapman, where there WAS organ removal.
Nichols falls inbetween. She could or could not have been meant for organ removal. The character of the wounds, however, is odd: Some six or so smaller cuts to the abdomen, and then one large gash through which organs COULD have been taken - if the wish was there.
Note, if you will, that Nichols falls neatly in place inbetween a clearly non-organ removal murder and a clearly organ-removal murder. It is not a given, therefore.

There are other implications knit to the characters of these three murders that are intensely interesting, but for now, I will leave them untouched on.

[Patrick S]

caz: Hi Fish,

So your only 'con' is still preferable to staying in the event that the newcomer had seen what had happened. If Paul had seen nothing suspicious, Lechmere was home dry merely by walking swiftly away; if Paul had seen foul play, the game would have been up - not could - if Lechmere stayed. He'd certainly have been forced to take Paul out of the equation with his knife to stop him yelling, and PC Neil wasn't far away by then.

Then do the math, Caz- If Neil (or any other PC) was not far away, then not having been seen by Paul could be to little avail, if he shouted blue murder when he reached the body. From that second on, any person leaving the site would be at risk.
But you must also look at the evidence! The abdominal wounds were COVERED, Caz. The killer mwould not have done that as the oncoming Paul watched, would he?
And if he would not, where does that lead us? Exactly, it leads us to a killer who had decided to bluff it out BEFORE he knew who the newcomer was. The desicion was quite apparently already taken, Caz. He never prioritized running, he always banked on his own ability to pull the scam off. He may well have had a plan B, but that was all it was, going by the covering of the wounds: a plan B. Plan A was to bluff.

Yep, you've convinced me: the cons of staying to face the music and trying to dance far outweigh the pros. Well done.

Thank you, Caz. And you have long since convinced me that you no know absolutely nothing about how a psychopath works and what choices he makes.

I didn't say that. I said that his 'control' over the situation goes out of the window since Paul is an unknown quantity at the point when he has to decide whether to stay or go.

And still he opted for the covering of the wounds and the bluff, before he knew. Read the signs, Caz!

If the argument then boils down to him being the kind of crazy reckless killer who actually enjoys such a challenge, rather than playing it safe, I might have considered it a possibility once he had several successful murders under his belt, but not when we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend, which I submit would have taken priority over getting himself known so early on as the man who had discovered a victim. Lechmere would have needed, more than anyone else on the planet, not to be seen near the scene of any subsequent murders.

Iīm sure he would have preferred not to be seen in Bucks Row. But **** happens, as you will be aware of.
It was not as if he could pick and choose when to get cornered, was it? You seem to propose this - that the coolness and audacity of a bluffing killer is something the killer will always be given the choice when to produce. But this is not so - things can go awry at any station along the line, and you do not get to choose.
One more thing. You say that he would have needed more killings under his belt before he could produce something like the Mizen scam. I think there is every possibility that he already had that "advantage".
Another thing: You say that "we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend."
Sorry, but this is something we guess, and not something we know.
I think the Tabram murder was the Rippers. If so, he had ample time to cut the abdomen open, but only produced one tentative cut to the lower abdomen. So no clear intent on organ removal there!
Then we have Chapman, where there WAS organ removal.
Nichols falls inbetween. She could or could not have been meant for organ removal. The character of the wounds, however, is odd: Some six or so smaller cuts to the abdomen, and then one large gash through which organs COULD have been taken - if the wish was there.
Note, if you will, that Nichols falls neatly in place inbetween a clearly non-organ removal murder and a clearly organ-removal murder. It is not a given, therefore.

There are other implications knit to the characters of these three murders that are intensely interesting, but for now, I will leave them untouched on.

Read the signs? Is he serious?