The Lechmere trail - so far

[pinkmoon]

I think I can end this interesting thread by pointing out the "bleeding obvious "as basil fawlty would say.Who ever was doing this wasn't going to wake up the next day after slaughtering poor Mary Kelly no longer a deranged physco we are asked to believe that Mr cross did and lived to good old age .Something happened to our killer that physically stopped him from killing this fact as well as the fact that our killer knew how to kill quickly and effeciently is always forgotten about.

[Jonathan H]

I wrote a post directly to you, some time back, and you did not respond, which is your right not to respond. I'm not a cop and you are not under interrogation.

But it seems you simply missed it and, if so, I apologize.

Now, here are two things you get fundamentally wrong about the evidence, which gives me no pleasure to point out (and also about my argument) as you have put a lot of time and effort into all this.

1. When you write that we know this, and we know that, we don't
know any such thing to the degree of exactitude that you claim, or need to know and then claim, in order to build a case for incriminating dodginess.

The documents you treat as gospel to make these measurements could be wrong.

2. I am not saying that the case ipso facto cannot be [provisionally] solved at this distance, e.g. because of the distance.

I am saying that second-guessing the people who were there is extremely difficult without really strong evidence that they missed and that they can be shown to have missed said evidence.

This might be documentation, for sure, showing criminal and/or violent behavior by this man under a separate identity (you have none whatsoever) or forensic evidence involving blood (but you don't have any blood or bodies).

Thirdly, and I am not bringing up my theory here as it is irrelevant.

But you make an assertion about my opinion that I have to correct.

I am not arguing that some of the 'Jack the Ripper' murders cannot be solved -- except, and its a big except, absolutely (we do not know that Lizzie Borden, who was acquitted, is absolutely guilty either but we can live with the contingent nature of knowing she axed her father and step-mother).

No, it cannot be solved absolutely and I realize you agree with me about that.

But I am arguing it was not a mystery after 1891. I am not putting this forward as evidence that the Lechmere theory is wrong. Not at all. I am trying to say that I think it was solved at the time, albeit a posthumous solution.

It was rebooted as a 'mystery' after the Great War.

PS

The term 'Ripperology' is made-up and is simply a tabloid, pop term. It has no academic weight, and nor should it. In the real world people use it to denigrate people like you and I who write books on this subject. It is the equivalent of the 70's term for believing in UFO cattle mutilations, e.g. Mutologists. If you want to use it, well, that's your funeral but if you use the even more appalling and grating term 'suspectology' then I really will have to call the police ...

[Fisherman]

Christer,

You don't understand the fragility and unreliability of written sources, as opposed to data that comes from physical-forensic evidence.

Which we entirely lack (sorry Russell).

You don't know, and none of us know, how long people took to do this this and that, or how long blood took to flow, and so on.

Your theory is built on shifting sand.

There is no rebuttal required, or counter-theorizing, or explanation as to why Lechmere is not the bets suspect because you have not shown what you must show--that the police of the day, or anybody of the day, missed something incriminating that you have found at this enormous distance.

I realize that you have decided not to respond to my posts and that is your right. But it does not change what most people here think and who agree with me --and they loathe me here unlike you, whom they dismiss as a 'mark' who thinks he is a 'smart' -- e.g. that you have failed to provide anything os substance to make your theory viable.

What makes you think that I have decided not to respond to your posts, Jonathan? I have done no such thing.

And what makes you think that I do not realize that written sources must be looked upon with some scepticism? I don´t think I have ever said anything else. But I have also said that what he have is what we have. If we were not to go by the written sources, then there would be no Ripperology.

You write "You don't know, and none of us know, how long people took to do this this and that, or how long blood took to flow, and so on."

No, I don´t know that in detail. But I can present a viable schedule that cannot be far off the mark. That is a very easy thing to do, since there are many timings involved and much information.

The distance from the murder spot to Mizen is the exact same today as it was back then. It takes two minutes to walk, give or take a little. We know that the carmen examined the woman, we know that Paul said "no more than four minutes", we know that there was a number of elements involved in the examination and so on. We can be absolutely certain that it could not all be managed in four minutes. It must have taken more, and a reasonable suggestion points to around six minutes.

There is nothing at all strange involved in this, and no shifting sand. Mizen could have been in place in five minutes, but more likely, he took around six to get there.

Likewise, blood has flowed and congealed along the same patterns since the dawn of man. We can be certain, therefore, that a bloodflow of six minutes from the neck is a long period of blodflow, just as we can be certain that the congealing points to the blood having flown for more than three or four minutes.

These are estimations but they are perfectly sound estimations. There can be deviations, but there is no sign of any such deviation: after half an hour the blood was a congealed mass, and Nichols was an alcoholic, probably given to quick blod-clotting.

What this all means is that there could never be a case built on the material that would stand up in a court of law as enough on it´s own to convict. More would be needed.

However, as Jason Payne-James pointed out, it is abundantly clear that Lechmere at least can never be exonerated on grounds of the blood evidence. And it is equally clear that a fair weighing of the evidence, working from a presumption that the blood behaved normally, seems to opint to how there can only be a small window of time for another killer to operate in.

But who IS that other killer? One of the many men who fled the scene when Robert Paul arrive? Noone did. One of the persons who produced loud footfalls in the distance? Nobody did. There is not a living soul recorded, there were PC:s and watchmen a plenty around. The contemporary police marvelled at how the killer could have escaped and the legend of a phantom killer was born. It was considered that the killer seemingly did the impossible.

Once again: There are many anomalies attaching to Lechmere. He gave the wrong name, he was claimed by a PC to have told him that another PC waited in Bucks Row, he said he walked 30-40 yards ahead of Paul who never heard him, he was found alone with Nichols and with no alibi, he should have been halfways down Hanbury Street at 3.46 if he left home at 3.30.

Why would he NOT be the prime suspect? What in the whole world swears against it? Who acted more suspicously on the night? Which are the contenders? Why must Lechmere be innocent? What should we do with him - drop him?

You think that it is impossible to find something today that points to a specific person being the killer, you say that it is too far away in time. I´m sorry, but that is just plain ignorant.
If it was true, there would equally be no Ripperology. There would be no reason to research the case.

How long a time should be conclusive in this respect? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty?

What is it that happens at these removes in time? Why does the door shut - BANG?

I have pointed to things - the Mizen scam, the blood evidence - that HAVE been there for all those years. Yet nobody has pointed to them before. Are you saying that they have been thoroughly examined and logically taken of the list of possible evidence?

You ar wrong on all counts, Jonathan. From the idea that I would avoid answering you to the point that a case can get so old that it is impossible to solve.
The age of the case has absolutely nothing at all to do with that. Not a iot.

You see, only the evidence counts. And evidence is overlooked all the time.

But not this time.

[Jonathan H]

Christer,

You don't understand the fragility and unreliability of written sources, as opposed to data that comes from physical-forensic evidence.

Which we entirely lack (sorry Russell).

You don't know, and none of us know, how long people took to do this this and that, or how long blood took to flow, and so on.

Your theory is built on shifting sand.

There is no rebuttal required, or counter-theorizing, or explanation as to why Lechmere is not the bets suspect because you have not shown what you must show--that the police of the day, or anybody of the day, missed something incriminating that you have found at this enormous distance.

I realize that you have decided not to respond to my posts and that is your right. But it does not change what most people here think and who agree with me --and they loathe me here unlike you, whom they dismiss as a 'mark' who thinks he is a 'smart' -- e.g. that you have failed to provide anything os substance to make your theory viable.

[Fisherman]

Hercule Poirot: It would be interesting to have a mathematical modeling tool which could weigh in each and every piece of evidence giving it a value that once added to the value of other pièces of evidence would offer a heuristic view of each suspect's level of guilt.

It would indeed! But I think it would be hard in the extreme to find acceptance among many posters out here when it comes to the suggested levels. For instance, I know quite well that the police would be extremely interested in a person found alone close to a freshly killed corpse, where it can be proven that the bleeding very much allows for the person in question to be the killer. It is a piece of evidence that should rate up at the very top of any sound list of evidence ratings.

The problem is that Lechmere answers up to this. And people out here do NOT like the idea that he was the killer of Nichols. The evidence implicates him, but most out here would swear that ANOTHER killer is more credible. None of these posters would be able to explain how that works, but that would not bother them - anybody´s entitled to their own view, they would say. And somebody had to find the body, don´t you know!?

So much as it is an interesting excercise you suggest, you may as well drop the idea here and now. Out here, having been mentioned by a police officer back in 1888 trumps trifles like having been found with the body and having no alibi for it. That´s the way it goes, Hercule, and the sooner you realize it, the better you will fare here.

PS. I note that you think that I get too little credit. That´s of course true, but saying it out loud will do you no good.

[Fisherman]

The information I obtained on Mulshaw,came from reliable sources.It was not,as you appear to believe,a serious attempt to classify him as a suspect.

Then you may need to tell Caz. I think she may seriously believe that you have at long last found the Ripper.

Sadly, now that you bail youself out of the Buffoon club, she will be left alone there, so you have a moral responsibility to live up to.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: There is everything wrong with what Mizen did if he had been informed that there was a woman either drunk or dead on Bucks Row. The first and over-riding duty of a police officer is to protect life. Everything else is secondary to that. Knocking up would be way down the list. You accept Mizen's version because you can use it to discredit Lechmere. I, however, do not, because I know how policemen think and it is far more likely, to my mind, that he was covering his own back over his transparently wrong priorities.

I am pretty certain that Monty clearly stated that Mizen acted in a way that followed protocol. You may need to discuss this with him, since you are both ex-coppers. One of you will be wrong.

Do not claim things on my behalf unless you can substantiate them. You are in no position to know why I make the calls I do, and you need to respect that. I accept Mizens version since I KNOW that the carman has anomalies clinging to his person and I KNOW that he gave the police the wrong name. His beaviour is suspicious, just like James Scobie said, and that governs my choice. Mizen was a man with an excellent service record and apparently a deeply religious man, living within a small religious coomunity for a large part of his life. I find him less likely to fault. But you seem to think that he is the more likely man to lie, and I am sure that you know more about Mizen than I do, so that you can make the better call. There will be some sinister inplications you have on him that I missed out on, right?

Trevor and I disagree over a great many things so there is no prospect of either of us clinging to the other, but there are occasions when we are in agreement.

Enjoy!

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: This is dissappointing. I was hoping for more. But, it's more of the same.

I am not very likely to drift arround inbetween different types of explanations, Patrick.

None of what you write here is logical, for a psychpath or otherwise.

You must realize that a psychopath and a normal person will have differing sets of logics to an extent. And in this case, what the killer did would only fit the logic of a psychopath - but it would fit very well.

I think it stands to reason that someone compelled to kill would not want to be captured so that he may continue to do so. This is not what Cross did. Again, lacking a crystal ball, if he killed Nichols, he seems to have been TRYING to be arrested.

No, Patrick, if he was the killer and tried to be arrested, he would stand by the body, knife in hand, confessing as he was caught.

What happened was that he fund himslef with a choice: There´s someone coming, shall I run and take the risk that he ehars me, sees the body and shouts for help, or shall I try and bluff him?

That is where we have the crossroads where we can discuss these matters. All of the other things that happened later would be dependant on this single detail. This one decision would always have to govern what he had to do next.

If he decided that there were too many direct risks involved in running, then we need to ask: Was he coldblooded enough to bluff it out? The disposition of a psychopath answers up exactly to the kind of disposition that would have been needed: never panicking, always fond of demionstrating your superiority, compulsive liar etcetera - it all fits, Patrick, and I am having problems understading why you would not see that.

I'm sorry, Fisherman. I feel like I've been able to put bias aside and give you my honest assessment. As I have said, I'm intrigued that this is the only instance you've found in which he gave the name 'Cross' while you've found some 100+ instances of his giving the name 'Lechmere'. I think that's fair. I've said that his route to work in relation to the weekday murders coupled with the proximity of his mother's house/previous residence to the weekend/holiday murders is suspicious. Yet, you seem completely incapable of saying something along the lines of, "That's something that I cannot explain" or "You are correct that doesn't fit with theory."

What? Do you find it to my disadvantage that I have explanations for everything that happened? And what is it I must admit does not fit with the theory? I just explained - for the umpteenth time - how what Lechmere did seems to tally exactly with psychopathy. I genuinely think it does and the books on the subject support my take. How is it that you think that I should instead say "no you are probably right and the books I have read are wrong and I am sure that he should have run"?

I can assure you, Patrick, that when I find something that I think is in conflict with the theory, I will acknowledge that. There have been bits and bobs, but nothing damning at all. One example is how it was pointed out to me that Lechmere´s mother would have been able to read the papers and she would have known that he was once the stepson of a man called Cross. That means that there is the chance that she would have made out that he was the witness. That was something I had not thought off.

Then again, it would demand that she read the Star or was informed about it, something that is not a given. And to add, I know that Edward speculates that his mother may have known what he was about all the time, and mothers are not very likely to give their children up to a hanging.

Such things - and they are very few - are the only obstacles I have been pointed to. Otherwise, it all falls in place. And it does so bit for bit. The name. The Mizen scam. The blood evidence.

Things are piling up, and they all are in line with the theory.

There are no perfect "suspects". Yet you seem intent on Cross being the one and only "suspect" with zero flaws and only damning evidence recommending him, and him alone, as Jack the Ripper.

He actually comes very close to that, Patrick. The type of "flaws", what little there may be, I just described. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, some of it more damning, some less, and there really is no contender at all when it comes to practical applicability. Least of all in the Nichols case.
Who would that competitor be? Mulshaw?

But, I'll play along and simply engage you.

You are welcome.

You're exlanation for his behavior is that he's a psychopath.

Turn it around, Patrick: If he was the killer, then everything pio¨¨oints to him being a psychopath. It´s not as if I can establish that he was and then have it confirmed by the deeds. I have no knowledge at all about his disposition of mind. If he was not the killer, if that ghost killer we enjoy speaking about, struck half a minute before Lechmere came down the street, then he could have been anything. If there was no other killer, then the character of the deeds, and the behaviour of the carman afterwards, all point straight to pshýchopathology.

This is based upon what? Was Charles Allen Lechmere diagnosed as a psychopath at any point in his life?

See the above.

Further, if he killed Nichols and went on to kill Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly (after having killed Tabram).....why no similar acts demonstrating his superiority to others?

Because he would already have emptied out that particular possibility of masquerading as a witness.

He was 100% successful in demonstrating his superiority. No one suspected him for 120 years. Yet, once was enough? His ONE triumph was enough for this psychopath?

I think he may well have wanted a lot more if he could have it. He would perhaps have wanted the papers to acknowledge him as a criminal mastermind, as a ghost killer, as superior to the police as somebody who could come and leave the murder sites like a phantom, always superior to the police...

He got that. Patrick. He is the most infamous of all killers, the greatest enigma in the records of crime - hell, he has you and me discussing him 127 years after his deeds!!! What more could he possibly ask for?

And this, remember, is predisposing that we are right. Maybe he only wanted to kill. Maybe he wanted no press coverage at all? Maybe overpowering and controlling his victims was all he needed?

In your scenario, he kills Nichols, and "finds" her body when he could have fled, asks a passerby to view her body, seeks out a policeman, appears at the inquest, is not supected in SLIGHTEST....... And then he goes back to quietly killing and avoiding detection?

Please. Either concede that this is a problem or do more research and do better!

What is troubling you, Patrick? What is it you think I would alter if I "did more research"? How do you conclude that you have done the more research, putting you in a position to make the call which is more credible? You seem to have awarded yourself that superiority.

I can only say that I have thirty years of experience of the Ripper case, I have read heaps of books on anatomy, psychology, serial murder and so on. I have discussed the case with lots of people. I have found no reason at all to think that I must be wrong. That is not to say I can´t be wrong, but before I start believing that, I need to be shown clear evidence supporting the suggestion.

Further, I don't want to let one point drop: You leave open the possibility that Cross stashed the knife close by. I'll follow this for a moment. In your version, Cross hears Paul. It may be a PC on the beat. Cross, being a psychopath, doesn't run. Instead he cuts Nichols' throat (otherwise, ala Tabram), hides the knife nearby, goes back to the body and engages Paul.

And you honestly feel this is reasonable?

I have never stated anything but a belief that he stashed the weapo on himself. I find such a thing totally reasonable, and actually the most credible thing, given that we know that the grounds were searched with no weapon found.

[Hercule Poirot]

I just hate it when the only argument one has falls into the 'Buffet Club' category.

[harry]

Fisherman,
As much as you value the opinions of Andy Griffiths and James Scobie,so do I value the teachings and opinions of others,arguably as well versed in criminal law,and I post with the assurance that my sources were equally as able as the persons you mention.
It is regrettable you have dropped to this level of involving persons who seem to have no wish to post,but I repeat,I would welcome their appearance and views,Yours seem to be floundering badly. I am not familier with their writings on Cross.
The information I obtained on Mulshaw,came from reliable sources.It was not,as you appear to believe,a serious attempt to classify him as a suspect.
Just to show the difference between information and evidence,but who knows,perhaps he did kill Nichols.It's possible.
No,Fisherman,I decline to join the Buffoon Club.With you already in it,it doesn't seem a good idea.

[Hercule Poirot]

Reliability of the evidence

It would be interesting to have a mathematical modeling tool which could weigh in each and every piece of evidence giving it a value that once added to the value of other pièces of evidence would offer a heuristic view of each suspect's level of guilt.

What I've been reading in the past pages (well!, since the top of the thread to be honnest) is piling up pièces of 'evidence' most of it being circumstantial and coming to the conclusion that one or the other 'suspects' is the Ripper.

The first methodical problem I have with what has been presented is that we're facing the 'proof by exhaustion method', dividing a suspect's profile into numerous elements and possible pieces of 'evidence', proving (or hoping to proove) each one of them plausible and coming to the conclusion that the suspect's guilt. The problem is that it's usually trustworthy and reliable in mathemathics but not in other domains. I must admit I'm impressed with the various 'facettes' Fisherman has come up with. But I honestly think they don't meet the proof by exhaustion method requirements. They however offer very interesting trails to follow and, please, let us must show more respect to what he has done than what I've observed to this day.

The second methodical problem I have is that most of the pieces could apply to a large portion of the population of the East-End. Even if by 'triangulation' they can be connected with Lechmere, they are not sufficiently exclusive IMHO. This results in confusion, ambiguity and a questionable level of certitude which would normaly bring a trial judge to reject a large prtion of what has been gathered. BTW, the same can be said with many other suspects.

The third third methodical problem is the absence a standard set of rules regarding the evidence presented in this case or any other one for that matter. Fisherman is constant in the set I seem to have noticed but many others are responding with a different set. It's like sail ships passing by on a foggy night.

Respectfully yours,

Hercule Poirot

[Trevor Marriott]

There is everything wrong with what Mizen did if he had been informed that there was a woman either drunk or dead on Bucks Row. The first and over-riding duty of a police officer is to protect life. Everything else is secondary to that. Knocking up would be way down the list. You accept Mizen's version because you can use it to discredit Lechmere. I, however, do not, because I know how policemen think and it is far more likely, to my mind, that he was covering his own back over his transparently wrong priorities.

Trevor and I disagree over a great many things so there is no prospect of either of us clinging to the other, but there are occasions when we are in agreement.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

That is your conjecture, but there was nothing wrong with what Mizen did, so he needed no excuse.

There is everything wrong with what Mizen did if he had been informed that there was a woman either drunk or dead on Bucks Row. The first and over-riding duty of a police officer is to protect life. Everything else is secondary to that. Knocking up would be way down the list. You accept Mizen's version because you can use it to discredit Lechmere. I, however, do not, because I know how policemen think and it is far more likely, to my mind, that he was covering his own back over his transparently wrong priorities.

Yes, he is a real master detective, that Trevor! You should cling to him and you will be fine!

Trevor and I disagree over a great many things so there is no prospect of either of us clinging to the other, but there are occasions when we are in agreement.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: If Cross killed Nichols, we can reconstruct a version of what may have occurred in Bucks Row:

If Lechmere killed Nichols we can reconstruct more than one version. But all in all, the possibilities are somewhat linited - ads they always are when we have detailed knowledge to some extent.

At 3:40AM Charles Cross was mutilating Polly Nichols’ abdomen and administering the two cuts to her throat (nearly decapitating her). He was disturbed by Robert Paul, whose footsteps he heard approaching, about 40 yards off.

Here I would tend to think that the cuts to the neck were directly lead on by Pauls arrival. A coup de grace, thus - à la Tabram.

Robert Paul tells us that “he saw in Buck's- Row a man standing in the middle of the road. As (I) drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and (I) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched (me) on the shoulder and asked (me) to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway.

Yes, he does - the only real difference comparing with the paer interview is that he said that Lechmere stood where the boy was. Since he did not mean that Lechmere stood ON the body, I think the two are not mutually excluding each other. It was a very narrow street, and "in the middle of the road" need not mean that it was measured by Paul.

Paul accompanied Cross to Nichols’ body. He felt her hands and face, and described them later as “cold”.

In the paper interview, he said that she was very cold, even - but Llewellyn, arrinving half an hour later, said that the body was warm but for the extremitites.

Nichols’ clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Paul states later that detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. Paul suggested that they should give her a prop, but Cross refused to touch her.

Yup.

Cross and Paul then left the deceased. At around this time PC Neil entered Buck’s Row and discovered Nichols’ body.

Two minutes after, more likely - as the carmen had turned the corner up at Bakers Row.

Both Cross and Paul later stated that they had left Buck’s prior to Neil’s arrival

They did not phrase themselves like that - but it is nevertheless true.

...and that they had left the victim alone in Buck’s Row. Cross stated later that, in his opinion (Nichols) looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries. Cross detailed why they left the victim under questioning at the Nichols Inquest:

The Coroner: Did the other man (Paul) tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he (Paul) 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.

So far so good - or bad.

Cross and Paul continued on together. In Baker’s Row they PC Mizen.

In the crossing of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street, even!

The men informed Mizen that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-Row.

Not if Mizen was on the money - he only said that Lechmere did so.

Cross said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."

This too is not in accordance with what Mizen said. According to him, Lechmere only said that she was lying in the street. Mizen also remarked that there was no speaking of any death or suicide.

Mizen, replied, "All right," and then walked on. PC Mizen confirms that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing of Hanbury Street and Baker's Row. He was approached by a carman who passed in company with another man. The men 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.

Some things stand out to me:

Cross has either just cut Nichols’ throat or he mutilated her abdomen when he hears Paul approaching.

The evidence is in favour of the neck coming last.

Paul finds him – not standing over the body which was lying against the gate

No - only a hand touched the gate, the left one.

– but “standing in the middle of the road”.

That is how it is worded.

It’s unclear if Cross if facing Nichols or Paul.

It is.

In any event, Paul states that he tried to walk past the man (Cross). But Cross approaches him, touches him, and asks him to “look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway.”

Let’s examine the decisions made by Cross here. Cross has killed Nichols when he hears footsteps approaching. He sees no one but he’s alerted to someone’s approach by the sound of footsteps on pavement.

That is a bit uncertain - it may be that there was a lamp up at Brady Street, so perhaps Lechmere DID see Paul entering the street.

He does not run. Even though it’s “very dark” and he has, as yet, not been observed.

Correct - but we cannot tell WHEN he noticed Paul. The closer Paul was, the riskier to run. If he wore steelshod shoes, he would have been heard easily no matter when he ran. Plus psychopaths lack the startle reflex and they never panic.

He remains close to the body. He then stashes the bloody knife on is person and stands in the middle of street.

Alternatively, he has already stashed it some time before.

At this point, Paul is approaching and moves to walk around Cross. Paul is trying to continue walking past Cross, and continue on his way to work. Rather than let Paul pass and continue down Buck’s Row, Cross reaches out and touches him and asks him to come see the woman he’s just killed.

He first closes in on him to cut Pauls way off.

Paul complies and goes with Cross to the body. Cross states that he thinks the woman is dead.

So he says himself. And Paul says that HE thought that she was dead too. But remember that Lechmere seems not to have said so to Mizen.

And if he wanted to play things down, then he may well not have told Paul can see no blood or an injury of any kind.

No, but Paul himself thought that she was dead, so Lechmere could perhaps not take that decision for him.

It's too dark.

Not THAT dark, no - they see clothes and hat, for example.

Paul touches the woman. He finds her hands and face cold. Her clothes are disarranged and Paul (helps to) pulls them down. Paul feels that he detects movement and states that he thinks that Nichols is breathing.

At this point Cross could have decided to agree with Paul on this point. A point that he knows is impossible since he just very nearly decapitated her. In doing this, he could have helped to convince Paul that Nichols was indeed alive. It’s likely that had he done so both men would have continued on to work, with Paul convinced that he’d simply stumbled upon a drunken woman, passed out on the pavement. Instead, Paul and Cross - Nichols’ killer - decide that they’ll stick together and hope to find a policeman.

If they had agreed that she was alive and kicking, then why would Lechmere not help to prop her up? No, Paul thoguth that she was dead, and only thought he felt a faint stirring in the body. Paul would have been aware that they had a possibly very serious errand on their hands, healthwise. And he DID say at the inquest that he thought she was dead.
Besides, I don´t think Lechmere fancied the idea of any further examination, coupled with efforts to raise her on her feet.

Approximately four minutes later they meet PC Mizen. Cross has four minutes to take an alternate route, to tell Paul, “I go this way. I’ll continue to look for a policeman and you do the same. Good day.” No. He continues on with Paul, in search of a POLICMEMAN.

While, it would seem, working on a plan. And keep in mind that travelling in pair with Paul would reasonably have seemd more innocent than walking the streets alone.

At this point Cross, who has just killed Nichols and hidden the bloody knife he used to do so on his person, approaches Mizen and tells him that a woman is lying in Buck’s Row, either drunk or dead. Mizen, apparently said, “Alright” and that’s about it.

Something happened before he said "Alright", Patrick - he was fed the lie that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row. So there it was: he was informed about the errand with no mentkioning of it´s graveness, he was told that another PC had it in hand but nevertheless requested his help. "Alright" is a logical answer.

But, Cross did not have a crystal ball. Mizen could very well have said, “And what do you know about it?” He could have asked him to turn out his pockets or asked him to show him where the body was, taking him RIGHT BACK TO THE MURDER SCENE.

Yes, he could. But WOULD he? Given the low seriousness, given that the carmen had helped his colleague out and been sent by him to fetch Mizen, the latter could rely on how there was no need to detain the men - his colleague would have tended to that.
And there is every reason to think that Lechmere prided himself on is smart plan.

Playing it through like this, I just find if hard to believe anyone wishing to avoid immediate arrest would behave this way?

And looking at it from my view?

This is dissappointing. I was hoping for more. But, it's more of the same. None of what you write here is logical, for a psychpath or otherwise. I think it stands to reason that someone compelled to kill would not want to be captured so that he may continue to do so. This is not what Cross did. Again, lacking a crystal ball, if he killed Nichols, he seems to have been TRYING to be arrested.

I'm sorry, Fisherman. I feel like I've been able to put bias aside and give you my honest assessment. As I have said, I'm intrigued that this is the only instance you've found in which he gave the name 'Cross' while you've found some 100+ instances of his giving the name 'Lechmere'. I think that's fair. I've said that his route to work in relation to the weekday murders coupled with the proximity of his mother's house/previous residence to the weekend/holiday murders is suspicious. Yet, you seem completely incapable of saying something along the lines of, "That's something that I cannot explain" or "You are correct that doesn't fit with theory."

There are no perfect "suspects". Yet you seem intent on Cross being the one and only "suspect" with zero flaws and only damning evidence recommending him, and him alone, as Jack the Ripper.

But, I'll play along and simply engage you. You're exlanation for his behavior is that he's a psychopath. This is based upon what? Was Charles Allen Lechmere diagnosed as a psychopath at any point in his life? Further, if he killed Nichols and went on to kill Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly (after having killed Tabram).....why no similar acts demonstrating his superiority to others? He was 100% successful in demonstrating his superiority. No one suspected him for 120 years. Yet, once was enough? His ONE triumph was enough for this psychopath? In your scenario, he kills Nichols, and "finds" her body when he could have fled, asks a passerby to view her body, seeks out a policeman, appears at the inquest, is not supected in SLIGHTEST....... And then he goes back to quietly killing and avoiding detection?

Please. Either concede that this is a problem or do more research and do better!

Further, I don't want to let one point drop: You leave open the possibility that Cross stashed the knife close by. I'll follow this for a moment. In your version, Cross hears Paul. It may be a PC on the beat. Cross, being a psychopath, doesn't run. Instead he cuts Nichols' throat (otherwise, ala Tabram), hides the knife nearby, goes back to the body and engages Paul.

And you honestly feel this is reasonable?

[Patrick S]

Patrick, S.: Yes, but Cross/Lechmere is supposed to be a sociopath (psychopath?) and very cool in situations like this, due to his sense of superiority over other men. So he doesn't panic and run, like any other killer would, you see-- or so I've read.

Packers Stem: Victorians considered a person in their undergarments to be "naked", which leads to some confusion when their comments are read by us in the (far) more permissive 21st century.

Caz: Thank you!

Fisherman: Yes, I know we don't know how Cross/Lechmere met Polly, but we can speculate -- this is Ripperology, after all. Where did you get the two minutes estimate for going to the main road, and then back to Bucks Row? Did you time that also, for the television program?

Behaving as he did, if he were guilty, isn't very superior, in my view.