The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I want nothing.I wish to change nothing as far as Paul's evidence is concerned.What I think ha s been done is show that Paul was not the liar you claimed he was.Why commit perjury when there was no need to ?What was the gain.

You cannot committ perjury by speaking to a newspaper. You can when speaking t an inquest. It therefore applies that the inquest version is the one that is much more likely to be true.

Do I give Cross the leeway to dwell and cut the victim's throat.Not necessarily,but you have raised an interesting and new claim.

It is not a claim. Dear me, Harry! It is pointing to what could apply if we read the Echo with a twist.

Her throat was cut AFTER the body wounds were made.Interesting.I'm sure posters will e agerly await your reasons for claiming so.

You may or may not be aware that the serving medico, Llewellyn said that this was what had happened. And the blood evidence is perfectly in line with the suggestion.

You may be amused at my predicament...

I am, rather. You have to admit it is pretty funny.

I am laughing my head off at yours.

So that´s how you lost your head? But exactly what is my predicament??

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

If Mizen’s story was true, he was not obliged to take Xmere and Paul’s names. If Paul and Xmere’s story was true, he was.

So the implications are...?

The strange part is, two days after the murder. Mizen is reported in the newspapers as denying he saw anyone in Baker Street.
“These officers (Mizen and Thain) had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention …”

Nobody did. There were two carmen who did NOT leave the spot to attract attention - they instead acted very responsibly.
That is the only explanation I can offer.

Equally bizarre, Mizen never mentioned the two men to Neil.

That too speaks in favour of Mizen having been told that another PC waited for him in Bucks Row. He would naturally have assumed, arriving there, that Neil was the PC spoken of.
It would therefore be odd if he asked questions to have something confirmed that he could bank on the other man already knowing:

"Was it you who sent those carmen?"
Of course it was. Why ask?

If I am correct, and if the Mizen scam went down the way I suggest, then these exact seconds would have been where the case really hung in the balance. If Lechmere had asked Neil about the carmen, he would get the answer that Neil had not seen any carmen. And that should have had Mizen and the police getting highly suspicious.

But if Mizen never asked - for the obvious reason that Neil in his eyes must have been the other PC spoken about - then all the pieces would fall in place for Lechmere. It all involved a large amount of luck, that goes without saying.
Saying that Lechmere would never have taken such a risk, though, is improductive. In the situation he was, if being the killer, his primary goal would have been to get away from the police and get the time to rid himself of the weapon and clean up, if needed.

Please note that Mizens silence when meeting Neil has a perfect parallel later: When Neil spoke to the papers and subsequently to the inquest, he said that he was the finder of the body and that he had not been directed to it by two men.
Of course, this would have been perfectly in line with what Mizen believed: Neil would have found the body, then the carmen would have surfaced and Neil would have sent them on to fetch him, Mizen. Therefoe, Mizen would have seen no need to go to his superiors and say that Neil had gotten it wrong.

If Lechmere had NOT told him that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row - if there had been no scam, that is - then Mizen would have been baffled to read how Neil took the honour of having found the body, when he himself knew that the carmen had found it first.
Rationally resoning, he would in such a case have gone to his superiors and told them about the carmen. But that never happened.

So in both of these instances, Mizens silence is explained by the character of the lie Lechmere had told him. That is how the scam would have worked. It was ingenuous, but it would have been revealed anyway if it had not been for a large slice of luck.

Being an H division copper off his patch he would have had to explain himself to the J division officers and some would have returned on the 15 to 20 minute back to the murder site with them, yet it appears he never mentioned the two men at any stage.

And the Mizen scam offers an explanation to why!

You are now asking all the right questions. Whether you agree with my answers to them or not is another matter, and you have a free choice to believe what you want to in this context. But it won´t change how the questions you ask are absolutely crucial for an understanding of the case.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169: A few of points confused me though.

“… we walked at a very moderate speed, and I think the trek was slightly shorter back then, new buildings having swallowed up the old route. Yet when you walked it in the TV show it specifically said. “The street layout is the same now as it was over a century ago.”

Buck´s Row is the same. But the overall route that was walked by Lechmere back then is not the exact same. A large Sainsbury´s has been built over where Foster Street once was. To stand on the spot where Paul lived, you need to stand by the cash registers in there.
At any rate, we could have shaved a lot of time off the 7.07 we recorded if we had hastened.

No disagreement David walked and timed the distances, I’m sure Ed did the same; people walk at different speeds and take different routes. All I’m interested in is, was it possible for Xmere to hit the targets within the time frame, David proved he could.

And Edward says that it would have been impossible, even if running. So there IS a disagreement.

“Only one of them said "exactly 3.45" and that was Paul.”

A classic example of cherry-picking.

Actually, no - he DID say this, and he WAS the only one who gave a timing claimed to be exact. No cherrypicking there.

Even in this thread, you’ve admitted Paul’s Lloyds interview contains contradictions.

It absolutely does. But we can also see that it involves truths. So we have a mixture, which does not change that he gave an exact time that would have been uncontroversial.

You dismiss his claims that Mrs.Nichols was dead long before Xmere got there because it suits your theory.

It is the other way around - it is obvious that Nichols was NOT long dead from the bloodflow, from the coagulation and from Llewellyns saying that she was warm. So it is beyond question that her death appeared close in time to Lechmere´s presence.

This indeed suits my theory - but I am not doing it backwards.

However when Paul said something you like in the interview, you push it as gospel over the evidence of three different policemen.

"Push it as gospel"? Nope. But I do point out how Llewellyns timings point to Paul being on the money. Besides, why would I be to blame for favuouring this view, when you favour the PC:s just as much? Why am I wrong to make my choice and you right to make yours? Do you have an explanation to offer on that score?

Including Mizen, who you cite as a paragon of virtue on all other occasions when he said something you like.

No, I do not. I know very little of his virtues. But I DO know that he had an excellent service record, that he was a deeply religious man and that he went on to take over and manage his father´s farm with great success. How much can be concluded from it, I can´t say - but the implications cannot possibly be those of a dunce, can they?

“You say that Neil called upon Thain at 3.45.

No I didn’t, 100 Aussie dollars to your favourite charity if you can cite where in my post I claimed that.

I can´t. I meant that you work from the presumtion that Neil found the body at 3.45. So he would have wawed down Thain a minute or so afterwards.

“Now, let´s try the suit on with my timings. I say that Paul entered Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 - as he put it in the newspaper article."

And managed to do it without being seen by Thain despite the very bright lights of the brewery.

Thain was not anywhere near the crossing in my schedule. He was five minutes away. I just explained this to you in my former post.

“He then arrived at Browns at around 3.46. He examined the body together with Lechmere, and his estimation that this process together with the walk to Bakers Row took no more than four minutes, speaks to me of an examination time of around a minute and a half. We therefore now arrive at circa 3.47.30. Then Paul leaves together with Lechmere”

And managed to do it without passing Neil.

See the last answer. We both KNOW that they missed Neil, and we both KNOW that this means that the timings are wrong to some extent.

“We therefore now arrive at circa 3.47.30. Then Paul leaves together with Lechmere”

And Mizen along with Neil and Thain got it all wrong, as your Mr Scobie would say, “a jury would not like that”.

That depends on how Neil, Mizen and Thain would substantiate their timings. If they said "we all went by the clock we could hear chiming", and it was shown that this clock was not reliable, then the jury would just love it.

No jury would like the proposition that it took Thain 13 minutes to get to 152 Whitechapel Road, though...

“But it seems you did not consider this part at all - you settled for the timings that suited your suggestion, you ditched Paul in favour of the PC:s”

Of course I did, that’s the whole point.

Yes it is rather.

Paul’s interview was a joke and by aligning with it …

I have Harry barking about how the interview is reliable. But I think you are closer to the truth - the interview was Pauls claim to fame, as I see things. He exagerrates his own role in a ridiculous manner.

But that does not mean that we must discard the given time. If he wanted to be believed, he needed to show that he was there at the correct remove in time.

You can brag about a number of things. But saying it happened at 3.45 is no more bragging than 3.40.

“and you avoided Llewellyn."

Yes I did. If I get time I’ll explain why in another post.

You seem to have had a lot of time so far....? But fine!

I’d also like to talk about the way Andy Griffiths was misled or misunderstood what you told him.

If you claim that I misled Andy Griffiths, I´m done talking to you. We already have Trevor Marriott making a complete fool of himself, and that is quite enough.
If you can substantiate that Griffiths misunderstood something, I am quite prepared to listen and comment.

[harry]

Llewellyn,at the inquest,does not state the order in which the injuries were committed.
Baxter in his summing up.
Dr Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first ,and caused instantaneous death.Surely it may well be, that as in the case of Chapman,the dreadfull wounds to the throat were inflicted first,and the others afterwards.
So Llewellyn did not say the throat wounds were first,and Baxter,from what he said(Baxter)is of opinion the throat wounds were first.
So no confirmation of your claim Fisherman,that Cross cut Nichols throat after Paul departed.
I'll go with Baxter that surely the throat was cut before the other injuries were made.
Yes I know Fisherman,there is talk of a downward motion.

[Fisherman]

harry: Llewellyn,at the inquest,does not state the order in which the injuries were committed.
Baxter in his summing up.
Dr Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first ,and caused instantaneous death.Surely it may well be, that as in the case of Chapman,the dreadfull wounds to the throat were inflicted first,and the others afterwards.
So Llewellyn did not say the throat wounds were first,and Baxter,from what he said(Baxter)is of opinion the throat wounds were first.
So no confirmation of your claim Fisherman,that Cross cut Nichols throat after Paul departed.

Eh? I never made such a claim, I´m afraid. I said that the Echo opens up for the possibility, but I very specifically also said that I do not think that it is the better suggestion. I think Nichols´ neck was cut as Paul arrived.

I'll go with Baxter that surely the throat was cut before the other injuries were made.
Yes I know Fisherman,there is talk of a downward motion.

Yes, that seems the sound thing to do - why go with the examining medico who saw and handled the body and the blood when there is a coroner with ambitions to solve the case himself to choose?
I congratulate you on your wise choice.

[Patrick S]

Christer says this:

I believe that he came in after having read how Paul said that he had found Lechmere standing where the woman was.

Let's be very clear. This is dishonest. And that's being charitable.

Paul did not say he saw Lechmere. He did not say he saw a man fitting a certain description. He said he saw 'a man'. Further, Paul does not describe this NAMELESS, FACELESS man as having accompanied him to Bakers Row. He does not have this NAMELESS, FACELESS man speaking with the PC he met there. In Paul's story he interacts briefly with the man in Bucks Row, and then goes on ALONE in search of a policeman. And THIS is what you say drove Cross out and forced him to come forward? I refuse to consider that - even you, with something to sell - actually believe this.

And Christer says this: As it happens, the police chose not to believe Paul, but that was not something that Lechmere could have foreseen.

If you take the time to check the wordings between what Lechmere says at the inquest and what Paul said in the interview, you will see that there are a great many very close likenesses and formulations.

I will say this again. This is totally irrelevant. It's another diversion by Christer to draw attention from the more damaging issue: Why in the hell would Cross come forward because Paul gave the statement he did? The answer, of course, is simple: HE WOULDN'T HAVE. He wasn't described, as a carman or otherwise, to ANY degree (save for being a male) by Paul.

And Christer says this too: Whether they could track him or not is not a very difficult question. If they searched for a man, looking like a carman, who passed trough Bucks Row at around 3.45 in the mornings, there would not be very many to choose from. And Paul could identify him, just as Mizen could - Mizen and his colleagues would arguably have met him on the streets before.

Now we get to the TRULY ABSURD. It's become clear that Christer is working very hard to keep this 'theory' of his alive. First off, and nothing beyond this point matters (but there is more): There was NOTHING said about Cross being a Carman or 'passing through Bucks Row'. He could just have well have lived in Bucks Row, or very near Bucks Row, or been the customer at a nearby pub. Now Christer gives the police a crystal ball. They know that Cross - who is not described by at all by Paul, Mizen at this point has not come forward - is a carman, on his way to work.

Further, Mizen testified at the inquest, on Monday, the same day that Cross testified, that he was approached by a carman. More, we do not have the testimony. We have a very brief summation in the papers. Mizen is reported to have said, "when a carman who passed in company with another man".

But, it gets worse here. Sunday's paper described Paul, not Cross as a carman. So, if we accuse Cross of parroting what Paul had said in the papers, can we not make the same accusation against Mizen? Further, isn't it also VERY possible that the reporter simply inserted the knowlege he already had into the testimony? He likely knew Paul was a 'carman'. He'd said so in the previous day's paper. This news was, after all, to quote from "New Evidence" a 'BOMBSHELL!'. Thus, it was liklely widely discussed. It's clear that PAUL was carman and Cross was the other man. Yet, again, this is ALL irrelevant in that this testimony cam AFTER Cross had already come forward. So, again, this is complete bunk! Again. Sorry. So it goes.

So. That statement that drove Cross out of HIDING.....doesn't mention him by name (either name, his real one or his 'fake' one), doesn't describe him (not his height, build, hair color, age, clothing), doesn't indicate he was on his way to work, doesn't say he lived in Doveton Street, doesn't say he worked at Pickfords, and it sure as hell doesn't say he was a carman, doesn't say the police want to talk to him. It doesn't have him doing much of anything other than calling Paul over. Paul - in his telling (clearly meant to play up HIS role) - takes over at that point. Cross, if one actually reads, disappears into the night, he's not on his way to work, on his way home, out for fresh air, or otherwise. Paul goes on. Paul says he told the man that he (Paul) would find a cop and send him. That's it. "The man" disappears from the story. He has no more lines. No further part to play. Yet.....this scares Cross into going back to the police? Oh......okay. Good call.

ONE MORE POINT and this is another very strong one, if I do say so myself:

PAUL is specific enough about one individual to force HIM to come forward: Jonas Mizen. He says he "saw one (PC) in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up". I am quite certain that the police would be able to identify which of their collegues Mr. Paul spoke to at that time in that place.

So, we now can be certain why Mizen came forward. He was either called on the carpet or decided to share his encounter with his superiors after he read Lloyd's on Sunday. We still have no good reason why Cross came forward (if he killed Nichols, that is). My best guess is that he read Paul's account and thought, "HEY! That's not how it happened! I went with him looking for a cop, too!"

For those who'd like to see it again, this is what Paul said, published on Sunday:

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

This is what Mizen said on MONDAY (and remember) on SATURDAY Neil testified that HE - and he alone - had found the body. Not Paul and Cross. Neil. And Mizen sure as hell had not described 'a carman' or anthing else before this testimony on MONDAY the same day that Cross came forward and testified.

Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

NOTE THAT THIS IS FAR FROM A QUOTATION! This is a summation of what Mizen said at the inquest. We have no proof that he said he was approached by a carman. Further, if he DID say carman, it was PAUL who was described as such in Lloyd's the previous day. NOT CROSS.

I know that Christer will not respond to me. He's angry that I've helped destroy this...uh...conclusion......of his. Perhaps someone else can comment. Thus, he can repsond to me, though you....like any adult would.

I have to say, much like Christer in 'Missing Evidence', I'm getting emontional...knowing I've gotten this kind of confirmation from, you know, actual facts and rational thinking (sniff....sniff).

[caz]

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

Hi Fisherman,

Isn't this argument rendered completely untenable by the known reactions of Lechmere to the fact that Paul was trying to avoid him, not yet aware that some poor woman was lying nearby and might need his help? Lechmere was having none of it. He actively prevented Paul from going on his way by touching him on the shoulder and persuading him to go with him to look at the woman. You say that Lechmere could not leave the scene without suspicion if Paul were to discover she had just been murdered, so how on earth was he expecting to stop Paul finding out, having specifically collared him to gawp at her? Remember, Lechmere has no idea who Paul is, or anything about him.

Lechmere : "Here, come with me and look at this woman."

Paul : "Okay, sorry, I was wary at first 'cos of the rough sorts you can get round here. She doesn't look too good, does she?"

Lechmere : "Okay, that's close enough, buster."

Paul : "What? You wanted me to help find out what was the matter with the poor dear and you're in luck because I have some first aid skills, so let me just... Good God, her head's nearly off!"

Lechmere : "Oh f***! Gotta go, the cat needs feeding."

Lechmere was on a hiding to nothing if Paul had a mind to examine the corpse more closely. His only options would be to physically prevent Paul from doing so, immediately raising suspicions of foul play, or to flee, hoping Paul hadn't by now seen and heard enough to get him identified.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

I am in total agreement with all that you say and refer back to the days when policemen on foot beats were supposed to check the doors of shops and businesses.

If in the morning a property had been found to have been broken into. The next night when the officer on that beat came on duty he would have been questioned about his movements the previous night and the checking of the said property.

Now if he hadn't bothered to check that property he is not going to say so for obvious reasons.He is going to say that he had checked it at a specific time or times and noticed nothing, this to cover his backside and a reason for not finding the insecurity.

We have what could be similar scenarios with regards to the movements of police officers throughout these murders, and timings and where they said they were, when in fact they may not have been at those places at the times when they said they were.

So the police evidence is not to be totally relied upon as being 100% reliable.

But of course like the doctors evidence in these murders which has now been brought into question so must the police evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If there was a 'Like' button on Casebook I'd press it. You and I know that officers take pains to cover their backs in the face of criticism. That is not to say that all of them were doing so but certainly some. One of the most common entries in the disciplinary records then, as in later years, involved drinking (or even drunkenness) on duty. P.c. Alfred Long was dismissed for the latter in 1889, yet is hailed as a model policeman by some and his timings taken as sacrosanct. I would never argue that officers' timings should be discarded as worthless but they should be treated with caution. Mizen claimed he was told that a colleague needed his help in Bucks Row when that was clearly not the case. That looks like back covering to me.

[Robert]

I've always wondered whether Harvey really went to the end of Church Passage. He was dismissed for something a year later, but we don't know what.

[Bridewell]

I've always wondered whether Harvey really went to the end of Church Passage. He was dismissed for something a year later, but we don't know what.

Indeed and his personal file makes interesting reading, more for what it doesn't contain than what it does. There are references recommending his appointment but everything else has been weeded out. Why leave the documents which justify his appointment but discard those which justify his dismissal? Not necessarily sinister but certainly strange. The only reference is the single word "Dismissed" in heavy pencil on the file cover.

[Abby Normal]

I'm not trying to defend Fish something he can easily do by himself but when I hear someone question the whole of a theory because it may contain certain flaws, it's as if a theory has to be perfect before recieving a certain degree of acceptance. Even Einstein's theories still contain flaws depending on the dimensional level you exam it.

I believe we are in the presence of contradictions, ambiguities, partial evidence, lack of desirable documentation in the Lechmere case and Fish has probably been one of the very few riperologists trying to come up with a logical understanding of the puzzle.

As I said before, I don't share his conclusion but many are currently using a different set of evidence presentation rules and of course come with a different conclusion. It's as if everyone is picking up a different series of bed crumbs and try to define exactly the nature of the loaf of bread. Now what really pisses me is when some can't or won't admit serving their own agenda when 'offering' us their presumed expert feedback. As far as I'm concerned, they only manage to introduce a slice of their own loaf obviuosly ignoring what a real loaf of bread looks like.

Respectfully yours.
Hercule Poirot

great post HP

[Abby Normal]

Hello Patrick,


If Mizen’s story was true, he was not obliged to take Xmere and Paul’s names. If Paul and Xmere’s story was true, he was. Either way he was obliged to write the incident down in his log. The Strange part is, two days after the murder. Mizen is reported in the newspapers as denying he saw anyone in Baker Street.
“These officers (Mizen and Thain) had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention …”

Equally bizarre, Mizen never mentioned the two men to Neil. Even stranger he was sent to Bethnal Green Police Station not only to get the ambulance but also reinforcements.



Being an H division copper off his patch he would have had to explain himself to the J division officers and some would have returned on the 15 to 20 minute back to the murder site with them, yet it appears he never mentioned the two men at any stage.



It gets worse, he went to the mortuary with the others (it was situated on his beat) and still he didn’t mention Xmere and Paul.

Re the timing of Xmere approach to the police;



At the end of the Saturday’s inquest, Abberline requested a meeting with Baxter asking for a delay as new evidence had come to light that he would like to present at the next inquest. Was that evidence Xmere? If it was then Xmere approached the police prior to Paul’s interview being published. And Xmere DID appear the next time the inquest convened.



Of course I’m moving into Fish’s area here, there is no proof, I’m just wondering.

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

He would have thought they had already spoken to and known by the PC who found Nichols.

[Patrick S]

Hi Fisherman,

Isn't this argument rendered completely untenable by the known reactions of Lechmere to the fact that Paul was trying to avoid him, not yet aware that some poor woman was lying nearby and might need his help? Lechmere was having none of it. He actively prevented Paul from going on his way by touching him on the shoulder and persuading him to go with him to look at the woman. You say that Lechmere could not leave the scene without suspicion if Paul were to discover she had just been murdered, so how on earth was he expecting to stop Paul finding out, having specifically collared him to gawp at her? Remember, Lechmere has no idea who Paul is, or anything about him.

Lechmere : "Here, come with me and look at this woman."

Paul : "Okay, sorry, I was wary at first 'cos of the rough sorts you can get round here. She doesn't look too good, does she?"

Lechmere : "Okay, that's close enough, buster."

Paul : "What? You wanted me to help find out what was the matter with the poor dear and you're in luck because I have some first aid skills, so let me just... Good God, her head's nearly off!"

Lechmere : "Oh f***! Gotta go, the cat needs feeding."

Lechmere was on a hiding to nothing if Paul had a mind to examine the corpse more closely. His only options would be to physically prevent Paul from doing so, immediately raising suspicions of foul play, or to flee, hoping Paul hadn't by now seen and heard enough to get him identified.

Love,

Caz
X

PERFECT!

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fisherman,

Isn't this argument rendered completely untenable by the known reactions of Lechmere to the fact that Paul was trying to avoid him, not yet aware that some poor woman was lying nearby and might need his help? Lechmere was having none of it. He actively prevented Paul from going on his way by touching him on the shoulder and persuading him to go with him to look at the woman. You say that Lechmere could not leave the scene without suspicion if Paul were to discover she had just been murdered, so how on earth was he expecting to stop Paul finding out, having specifically collared him to gawp at her? Remember, Lechmere has no idea who Paul is, or anything about him.

Here we go again with all of these "completely untenable" arguments!

Point one. Paul was not likely to miss the woman. He said that she was impossible to miss, more or less: "If a policeman had been there he must have seen here, for she was plain enough to see."

So it seems there was no practical chance of this happening.

Furthermore, when Paul arrived at the yard gate, Lechmere was standing still in the middle of the street. It therefore seems he had decided beforehand to bluff it out. Keep in mind that it seems he had covered the wounds to the abdomen - that should tell the story; the preparations were made.

The fact that Paul tried to avoid him would in that context have been something that Lechmere was not willing to allow for. He knew that the woman would be seen, he know that Paul would see him and he also knew that if he did not interact with Paul, there was a clear risk that Paul would either A/ notice the murder and/or B/ pass the body by, and then contact the police once the murder was discovered. Such a thing would of course allow Lechmere to leave the body afterwards and get out of the area, but he would do so with a man on the loose who could testify about Lechmere´s having been in place. It would carry with itself a great risk of the police deciding on hoim being the probable killer and starting to look for him with the aid of Paul.
No matter which choice he opted for, it would involve risks. Never loose track of this - there was ALWAYS going to be risks involved in what the Ripper did. He was not squeamish. He would not cancel on account of being afraid.
I think he made a very clever choice. And, as I said, it seems he decided on trying it before he knew who the stranger was.

Lechmere : "Here, come with me and look at this woman."

Paul : "Okay, sorry, I was wary at first 'cos of the rough sorts you can get round here. She doesn't look too good, does she?"

Lechmere : "Okay, that's close enough, buster."

Paul : "What? You wanted me to help find out what was the matter with the poor dear and you're in luck because I have some first aid skills, so let me just... Good God, her head's nearly off!"

This little amusement on your behalf is really enlightening. Compare with how things developed, and how Lechmere said he would not help prop her up. It comes quite close to what you think is a joke!

Lechmere was on a hiding to nothing if Paul had a mind to examine the corpse more closely.

Yes, that is absolutely true!

His only options would be to physically prevent Paul from doing so, immediately raising suspicions of foul play, or to flee, hoping Paul hadn't by now seen and heard enough to get him identified.

To some extent, he could have ruled what happened. He could have instructed Paul what to do, what to feel etcetera. And keep in mind that he drew the line when a prop-up was suggested! He may well have been very much in control - and he may have enjoyed it.
But overall, there was always going to be a risk that Paul saw that the woman had been killed.

How the carman would have solved that issue is something we can only speculate about. Maybe Neil would have found two dead bodies. Maybe Lechmere would have said "Good God, let´s find a PC! You take that road and I´ll take this!"

Caz, in discussing all of this you need to respect that my suggestion is that we are dealing with a psychopath. They thrive on playing games, lying, playing the upright citizen etcetera. If Lechmere decided long before Paul reached the stable gate to bluff the oncomer - and the hiding of the wounds indicates this - then we can be sure that this was a man who had nothing at all against taking his chances and playing a dangerous game.

There is nothing at all untenable about it, I´m afraid.

[Fisherman]

If there was a 'Like' button on Casebook I'd press it. You and I know that officers take pains to cover their backs in the face of criticism. That is not to say that all of them were doing so but certainly some. One of the most common entries in the disciplinary records then, as in later years, involved drinking (or even drunkenness) on duty. P.c. Alfred Long was dismissed for the latter in 1889, yet is hailed as a model policeman by some and his timings taken as sacrosanct. I would never argue that officers' timings should be discarded as worthless but they should be treated with caution. Mizen claimed he was told that a colleague needed his help in Bucks Row when that was clearly not the case. That looks like back covering to me.

Yes, SOMEONE was covering his back. Explain to me why Lechmere said that both he and Paul spoke to Mizen, whereas Mizen himself said that Lechmere was the guy doing the talking.
Who is telling the truth here, and what is on stake for the respective parties? Why would not Mizen admit that both men had spoken to him - if that was indeed the case?