Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see you have a more optimistic view than I do.

First I've heard of Mann, Hardiman and Endacott. Hardiman is the only one that makes a decent suspect - daughter recently dead of syphilis that she got from her mother, who would die of it before the killings were over. Hardiman died of TB three years after the murders - failing health could be a reason for the murders stopping.

Based on what I can find, that makes Hardiman one of the better suspects. Not a good suspect, just better than most.

Certainly better that Lech.

[FrankO]

The idea that he was picked up by the police in a dragnet, the Monday morning of the inquest, heading for work has several problems: first, it seems that the police didn’t buy Robert Pauls story, initially;

What makes you think it seems that they didn’t believe Paul at first, Newbie?

2nd, they most probably wouldn’t have fitted him into the inquest schedule on such short notice: there were later dates available.

I don't claim to be anything other than a layman on inquest procedures, but I do see a reason why they would have fitted him into the schedule on such short notice: to clear up the police’s view of who found the body first and in so doing, quite possibly making the police look a little less bad to the public eye. Because until Sunday night it seems that the police were in the dark about Lechmere finding the body and the carmen’s meeting with Mizen. So, the next day we see both Mizen and Lechmere at the inquest clearing this up.

[FrankO]

In a dark dangerous street, with murders and gangs, sounds are important for your survival. So it is very strange that Paul makes no mention of hearing anything ahead, and that he starts with a visual clue.

OK, let’s suppose he was on high alert when walking through Buck’s Row, he was listening for every single sound that he could hear.

Why then wouldn’t he have heard a guilty Lechmere moving around the body and then away from it to take his position in the middle of the street?

And, perhaps more importantly, why wouldn’t it have surprised Paul immediately (or even later on) that he hadn’t heard Lechmere walk ahead of him if he’d been so alert? Shouldn’t (as is your point) he have heard him if he actually would have been walking not too far ahead of him then, if he had indeed been so intently listening?

No matter, Lechmere hangs himself, and Paul doesn't bail him out.

A(nother) bad move, then, on a guilty Lechmere’s part.

My belief is that Lech, like PC O'Neil, heard footsteps at Brady street from the location of Polly Nichols body, and went to the middle of the street to wait.

So, you believe that he waited for about a minute for Paul to arrive? Why would he want to do that?

[FrankO]

"Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing.

Paul made his statement first on Friday night, on his return from work. And then on Saturday night he repeated his story, after which it appeared in the Sunday edition. If we'd see it like this, he may well have been fetched up in the night from Friday to Saturday. This way, losing the next day of work, would fit as it was a Saturday.

He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place."

If what I wrote above is true, then the 2 inquest days would have been September 3rd and 17th, the latter, of course, being the day that he actually gave his evidence at the inquest. This would also fit in the sense he wasn't called again after he'd given his testimony, because there seems to have been nothing left to ask him. He told his whole story and that was it, no need for a deposition on another day.

But, of course, as you suggest, the police may also have summoned him for the 17th and the 22nd with the 2nd day as a sort of punishment for talking to a newspaper, putting the police in a bad light, but not talking to them and so they made him loose the 22nd without him giving any extra statement at all. This possibility would put the fetching up at the earliest in the night of Sunday 2 to Monday 3. I'm still undecided.

[Elamarna]

As already noted, just the arguments that you have given here have made me reassess my position. It's a refreshing change to deal with someone using facts and logic.

The Lloyds account only gives Paul's surname. The first example of his first name being given (that I am aware of) is the September 3 Evening News. So I am doubtful that the police found him before the evening of the 3rd. Even then, the 4th seems more likely. The electoral registers don't seem to have listed occupation, and thee were at least 8 Robert Pauls living in London at the time of the 1891 Census.

The News story is simply a version of the Lloyds account , probably the same journalist involved.

The police only had to ask the journalist who surely had Paul's details, full name and possibly even address.
Even if they didn't get first name, they would know the man was on his way to work, so look at the register for people who lived close to Bucks Row.

The missing two days from work, looks to make more sense if he is called for 3rd , but not used, then actually appears on 17th.

Appearing on 17th , then being called back but not appearing on the next day is I suggest less likely, although it can't be ruled out.

After giving the initial story on the Friday, he spoke to the paper on the Saturday. It's clear at this point he had not spoken to the police. However, it's also very possible that the initial story was in the public domain from lunch time on Saturday.
Lloyds printed a copy on Friday night/Saturday morning.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any copies of the Saturday edition.

They are easy to identify, the later editions carry the special Sunday or extra special Sunday lines.

I really do suggest you have a read of the chapter "missing reports and reluctant witnesses " from inside bucks row, which as all the sources and references .

[Abby Normal]

Certainly better that Lech.

hey herlock and fiver

james hardiman? the son of a peripheral witness of the chapman murder and someone who has exactly zero connection to the case? cmon.
again, you and fiver do yourself no favors with this silliness herlock.

lets strip away the over egging and errors of newbie and some of the other over zealous lechmerians and what do we have?

a man who was seen alone with a freshly killed victim, who by all witness accounts and the evidence is clearly in the frame for her murder, whos route to work and where his mum lived is very near the murder sites, who had a material discrepency with what happened with a pc on the scene, who lived in the area for along time, and fits the local avg joe profile to a t. and the only clue the ripper ever left, the gsg and eddowes bloody apron, is on a route from mitre square back to his home.

so lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.

and to say people like mann, hardiman and endacott are better suspects is a joke.

herlock i know weve agreed to disagree on lech and thats fine, no need to respond. but fiver you specifically said hardiman makes a better suspect than most. so let me ask you, what suspects do you consider " better than most" ?

[JeffHamm]

Often I've seen people arguing that Paul should have been aware of Cross/Lechmere walking ahead of him and they point to PC Neil hearing PC Thain as the latter crossed at the top eastern end of Buck's Row as evidence. Setting aside the fact that at no point does Robert Paul ever state when he first was aware of Cross/Lechmere (so hey, maybe he was aware there was a fellow ahead of him, but only starts his testimony at the point he noticed the fellow was no longer walking but had stopped in the middle of the street).

Regardless, if we accept that Paul should have heard Cross/Lechmere because one can hear another person walking that entire distance, then obviously Cross/Lechmere as JtR would have heard Paul entering Buck's Row.

The argument goes that Cross/Lechmere remains because it would be too risky to leave the scene if he left. Again, setting aside the risk that is involved in having someone actually be able to see you after murdering someone in the street, and setting aside the fact that Cross/Lechmere ensured that Paul saw the body by calling him over despite Paul's initial attempt to bypass and just move on, how risky would it actually be for Cross/Lechmere to just walk away?

By that I mean, what if all he did was to walk away, at a normal walking speed the entire time (so at the same speed Paul is coming down Buck's Row). Not running, because some argue that would raise suspicion, but just walk away. Where would he get to?

Well, it's about 417 feet from the entrance of Buck's Row to the crime scene in a straight line. We know Paul was walking on the north side of the street, but to minimize the distance let's just go with that straight line distance. At an average walking speed (3.2 mph) that requires 1 minute 28 seconds to cover. I've plotted out two paths that a "walking away" Cross/Lechmere might follow, to see roughly where he would be 417 feet later (by the time Paul would get to the crime scene, and so the earliest point he could raise an alarm - presuming of course he would have examined Polly without Cross/Lechmere calling him to do so, and presuming that in this pretend version of events instead of missing her injuries entirely he works out she's been murdered - maybe he would, he was considering sitting her up after all, but that may only because he would have had assistance, and he didn't try to do so when Cross/Lechmere indicated he wasn't going to help do that, so there's no real knowing how this version would have gone had things gone this way).

Of course, we can work out where Cross/Lechmere could get to, because that doesn't involve the complexities associated with human behaviour, it's simply a matter of making out the same distance. I've not worked out all routes, such as circling around to Winthrop, but one could do that for themselves if they wish. Also, I do apologize but one of my end point markings shifted as I clicked, resulting in making one route 2 feet longer than it should be, but I beg an indulgence for that error.

As we can see, if all he did was walk, he could have turned the corner to get out of view of Buck's Row (that corner is about 126 feet from the crime scene), and headed towards Whitechapel and be almost onto a main road, where he could disappear into the crowd of people on their way to work. Alterntively, he could have just continued towards Fulbourne, taking the route he ends up actually taking. At that point he has a few options as to how to continue, all out of sight of anyone at the crime scene, and is already pretty far from the crime scene.

Even if Paul were to examine Polly, note her injuries, and raise a cry for the police, all of that will take some amount of time, but let's say it all happens pretty quick, and Paul is able to summon a police officer to the scene in 2 minutes.

And during all of that additional time, Cross/Lechmere could just continue to walk on into the void and would now be another 563 additional feet from the crime scene, over double the distance indicated on the map below, never running, never doing anything to draw attention to himself, and always walking towards his place of work, justifying his presence where ever he is should he be stopped. But stopped by who? The police would fan out from the crime scene, they would have to catch up with him, and all the while that they are fanning out looking for people, he's walking further and further away.

Personally, I find the argument that a guilty Cross/Lechmere remains at the scene because it was too risky to leave unfathomable. Just walking away would more than likely have put him outside the search area.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Often I've seen people arguing that Paul should have been aware of Cross/Lechmere walking ahead of him and they point to PC Neil hearing PC Thain as the latter crossed at the top eastern end of Buck's Row as evidence. Setting aside the fact that at no point does Robert Paul ever state when he first was aware of Cross/Lechmere (so hey, maybe he was aware there was a fellow ahead of him, but only starts his testimony at the point he noticed the fellow was no longer walking but had stopped in the middle of the street).

Regardless, if we accept that Paul should have heard Cross/Lechmere because one can hear another person walking that entire distance, then obviously Cross/Lechmere as JtR would have heard Paul entering Buck's Row.

The argument goes that Cross/Lechmere remains because it would be too risky to leave the scene if he left. Again, setting aside the risk that is involved in having someone actually be able to see you after murdering someone in the street, and setting aside the fact that Cross/Lechmere ensured that Paul saw the body by calling him over despite Paul's initial attempt to bypass and just move on, how risky would it actually be for Cross/Lechmere to just walk away?

By that I mean, what if all he did was to walk away, at a normal walking speed the entire time (so at the same speed Paul is coming down Buck's Row). Not running, because some argue that would raise suspicion, but just walk away. Where would he get to?

Well, it's about 417 feet from the entrance of Buck's Row to the crime scene in a straight line. We know Paul was walking on the north side of the street, but to minimize the distance let's just go with that straight line distance. At an average walking speed (3.2 mph) that requires 1 minute 28 seconds to cover. I've plotted out two paths that a "walking away" Cross/Lechmere might follow, to see roughly where he would be 417 feet later (by the time Paul would get to the crime scene, and so the earliest point he could raise an alarm - presuming of course he would have examined Polly without Cross/Lechmere calling him to do so, and presuming that in this pretend version of events instead of missing her injuries entirely he works out she's been murdered - maybe he would, he was considering sitting her up after all, but that may only because he would have had assistance, and he didn't try to do so when Cross/Lechmere indicated he wasn't going to help do that, so there's no real knowing how this version would have gone had things gone this way).

Of course, we can work out where Cross/Lechmere could get to, because that doesn't involve the complexities associated with human behaviour, it's simply a matter of making out the same distance. I've not worked out all routes, such as circling around to Winthrop, but one could do that for themselves if they wish. Also, I do apologize but one of my end point markings shifted as I clicked, resulting in making one route 2 feet longer than it should be, but I beg an indulgence for that error.

As we can see, if all he did was walk, he could have turned the corner to get out of view of Buck's Row (that corner is about 126 feet from the crime scene), and headed towards Whitechapel and be almost onto a main road, where he could disappear into the crowd of people on their way to work. Alterntively, he could have just continued towards Fulbourne, taking the route he ends up actually taking. At that point he has a few options as to how to continue, all out of sight of anyone at the crime scene, and is already pretty far from the crime scene.

Even if Paul were to examine Polly, note her injuries, and raise a cry for the police, all of that will take some amount of time, but let's say it all happens pretty quick, and Paul is able to summon a police officer to the scene in 2 minutes.

And during all of that additional time, Cross/Lechmere could just continue to walk on into the void and would now be another 563 additional feet from the crime scene, over double the distance indicated on the map below, never running, never doing anything to draw attention to himself, and always walking towards his place of work, justifying his presence where ever he is should he be stopped. But stopped by who? The police would fan out from the crime scene, they would have to catch up with him, and all the while that they are fanning out looking for people, he's walking further and further away.

Personally, I find the argument that a guilty Cross/Lechmere remains at the scene because it was too risky to leave unfathomable. Just walking away would more than likely have put him outside the search area.

- Jeff

Nice work Jeff, there is similar in the chapter on the meeting of Lechmere and Paul in Inside Bucks Row.

In addition here is a screenshot on the possible escape routes for a killer, with distances and a range of walking speeds.

I do accept that the distances, may all be a yard or so out, and differe slightly from yours , i expect this is dependent on the exact points used for the measurement, and the exact lines plotted, but they are in the same region.( we are i think both usinging the measuring tool at the NLS site).

[Abby Normal]

Often I've seen people arguing that Paul should have been aware of Cross/Lechmere walking ahead of him and they point to PC Neil hearing PC Thain as the latter crossed at the top eastern end of Buck's Row as evidence. Setting aside the fact that at no point does Robert Paul ever state when he first was aware of Cross/Lechmere (so hey, maybe he was aware there was a fellow ahead of him, but only starts his testimony at the point he noticed the fellow was no longer walking but had stopped in the middle of the street).

Regardless, if we accept that Paul should have heard Cross/Lechmere because one can hear another person walking that entire distance, then obviously Cross/Lechmere as JtR would have heard Paul entering Buck's Row.

The argument goes that Cross/Lechmere remains because it would be too risky to leave the scene if he left. Again, setting aside the risk that is involved in having someone actually be able to see you after murdering someone in the street, and setting aside the fact that Cross/Lechmere ensured that Paul saw the body by calling him over despite Paul's initial attempt to bypass and just move on, how risky would it actually be for Cross/Lechmere to just walk away?

By that I mean, what if all he did was to walk away, at a normal walking speed the entire time (so at the same speed Paul is coming down Buck's Row). Not running, because some argue that would raise suspicion, but just walk away. Where would he get to?

Well, it's about 417 feet from the entrance of Buck's Row to the crime scene in a straight line. We know Paul was walking on the north side of the street, but to minimize the distance let's just go with that straight line distance. At an average walking speed (3.2 mph) that requires 1 minute 28 seconds to cover. I've plotted out two paths that a "walking away" Cross/Lechmere might follow, to see roughly where he would be 417 feet later (by the time Paul would get to the crime scene, and so the earliest point he could raise an alarm - presuming of course he would have examined Polly without Cross/Lechmere calling him to do so, and presuming that in this pretend version of events instead of missing her injuries entirely he works out she's been murdered - maybe he would, he was considering sitting her up after all, but that may only because he would have had assistance, and he didn't try to do so when Cross/Lechmere indicated he wasn't going to help do that, so there's no real knowing how this version would have gone had things gone this way).

Of course, we can work out where Cross/Lechmere could get to, because that doesn't involve the complexities associated with human behaviour, it's simply a matter of making out the same distance. I've not worked out all routes, such as circling around to Winthrop, but one could do that for themselves if they wish. Also, I do apologize but one of my end point markings shifted as I clicked, resulting in making one route 2 feet longer than it should be, but I beg an indulgence for that error.

As we can see, if all he did was walk, he could have turned the corner to get out of view of Buck's Row (that corner is about 126 feet from the crime scene), and headed towards Whitechapel and be almost onto a main road, where he could disappear into the crowd of people on their way to work. Alterntively, he could have just continued towards Fulbourne, taking the route he ends up actually taking. At that point he has a few options as to how to continue, all out of sight of anyone at the crime scene, and is already pretty far from the crime scene.

Even if Paul were to examine Polly, note her injuries, and raise a cry for the police, all of that will take some amount of time, but let's say it all happens pretty quick, and Paul is able to summon a police officer to the scene in 2 minutes.

And during all of that additional time, Cross/Lechmere could just continue to walk on into the void and would now be another 563 additional feet from the crime scene, over double the distance indicated on the map below, never running, never doing anything to draw attention to himself, and always walking towards his place of work, justifying his presence where ever he is should he be stopped. But stopped by who? The police would fan out from the crime scene, they would have to catch up with him, and all the while that they are fanning out looking for people, he's walking further and further away.

Personally, I find the argument that a guilty Cross/Lechmere remains at the scene because it was too risky to leave unfathomable. Just walking away would more than likely have put him outside the search area.

- Jeff

great work as usual Jeff. but let me ask you this.. if a guilty lech stayed put because he was caught unawares by pauls arrival and froze for a moment and thought his time to walk away had passed and decided to stay and act like he was an innocent bystander.. would that be unfathomable?

[JeffHamm]

great work as usual Jeff. but let me ask you this.. if a guilty lech stayed put because he was caught unawares by pauls arrival and froze for a moment and thought his time to walk away had passed and decided to stay and act like he was an innocent bystander.. would that be unfathomable?

It doesn't violate the rules of the universe I suppose, but it seems to me that a murderer probably doesn't want to get caught unawares and so would be on the alert for people approaching. If he isn't, then it points to someone not really all that concerned about the risk of being seen (caught unawares), but then we go on to say that it is to mitigate the risk of being seen that keeps him there? It leads to a paradox, he's unconcerned about being seen, which is why Paul gets so close, until he is concerned about being seen, which is why he stays. I'm not sure my thinking is that nimble.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Nice work Jeff, there is similar in the chapter on the meeting of Lechmere and Paul in Inside Bucks Row.

In addition here is a screenshot on the possible escape routes for a killer, with distances and a range of walking speeds.

I do accept that the distances, may all be a yard or so out, and differe slightly from yours , i expect this is dependent on the exact points used for the measurement, and the exact lines plotted, but they are in the same region.( we are i think both usinging the measuring tool at the NLS site).

Nice to see similar measurements. And yes, the values are dependent upon exactly where you click, and what zoom level you use as well I think. If one measures the same thing, like the length of Buck's Row for example, the values will vary from one measurement to the next by a few feet each time. Also, ask two people to take the measurements, and each will produce different estimates because each will introduce their own subjective notion of where a street begins and where it ends, etc.


One could take each measurement multiple times, and then average them, to get a more stable value. It would also provide one with an idea of the margin of error associated with such measurements (there's those nasty margins of error again), and have all sorts of fun with that. Generally thought, for purposes such as this example, that kind of pedantic methodology is unnecessary. It doesn't really matter if we're out by a couple feet here or there, the point being illustrated remains the same.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

It doesn't violate the rules of the universe I suppose, but it seems to me that a murderer probably doesn't want to get caught unawares and so would be on the alert for people approaching. If he isn't, then it points to someone not really all that concerned about the risk of being seen (caught unawares), but then we go on to say that it is to mitigate the risk of being seen that keeps him there? It leads to a paradox, he's unconcerned about being seen, which is why Paul gets so close, until he is concerned about being seen, which is why he stays. I'm not sure my thinking is that nimble.

- Jeff

no paradox jeff. hes concerned about being caught, hes on alert, hes also in the act of murdering and mutilating a woman, so he cant be 100% percent alert of other people approaching, someone else arrives suddenly, hes somewhat surprised and hesitates on what to do next, then realizing in that moment hes lost the opportunity to walk away, decides to stay and bluff it out.

and i can assure you criminals surprised in the act of commiting a crime will sometimes stay and try to bluff it out in this universe. ive personally seen it happen.

but dont take my word for it, even lord orsam admits its possible in the case of lechmere and certainly not "unfathomable".

[JeffHamm]

no paradox jeff. hes concerned about being caught, hes on alert, hes also in the act of murdering and mutilating a woman, so he cant be 100% percent alert of other people approaching, someone else arrives suddenly, hes somewhat surprised and hesitates on what to do next, then realizing in that moment hes lost the opportunity to walk away, decides to stay and bluff it out.

and i can assure you criminals surprised in the act of commiting a crime will sometimes stay and try to bluff it out in this universe. ive personally seen it happen.

but dont take my word for it, even lord orsam admits its possible in the case of lechmere and certainly not "unfathomable".

As I say, it's not impossible. But the logic used to justify it is paradoxical: he's not alert enough to detect someone coming, which means he's not all that worried about being seen, but he stays because he's worried about being seen. He's concerned when required and not concerned when required to make it work. Moreover, if he's worried about being seen leaving the area, so he sticks around, why is he not worried about being seen moving away from the body to the middle of the road? If he thinks Paul would see him leave the area, then he thinks Paul can see him move away from the body too - and if he thinks Paul has seen him move away from the body then his interaction with Paul, indicating he's just found her, makes no sense (because he would have to believe Paul knows he's already been examining her, making his behaviour suspicious). Maybe he's an idiot, but he's also clever when he has to be too. Again another paradox, he's clever when necessary but he's an idiot when necessary too.

Remember, we're not talking about Paul suddenly coming upon him as in opening a door right next to him, or just across the street. Paul is still around 120 feet (40 yards) away when he reports seeing Cross/Lechmere in the middle of the street - so Cross/Lechmere would have to have become aware of Paul before that in order to move to the middle of the street. And he has to move quietly and cautiously, in order not to be seen. Let's say during Cross/Lechmere's cautious shift to the middle of the street allowed Paul to walk 10 yards (about 6 seconds). That places Paul at around 150 feet when Cross/Lechmere notices him, which is about 1/3rd the distance to the east end of Buck's row, so it's not like Paul is on top of him, and while it may risk him being seen walking away from the body, the very act of moving to the middle of the street does the same thing anyway! The difference is that sticking around leaves him at a greater risk of being identified! So he isn't concerned about being identified by Paul, but he is concerned about being seen as a shadowy figure walking down the street, but not concerned about being seen as a shadowy figure that only walks from the body to the middle of the street?

It doesn't make any sense to me, and the argument is paradoxical in how it explains his actions. He's concerned but not concerned at the same time about the same things; he's clever and an idiot at the same time. Sure, people do weird things, and sometimes those things may appear self-contradictory, so as I say, it doesn't actually violate the principles of the known universe, but as an explanation it is logically incoherent. And while I'm sure some examples of some criminals can be found doing something similar to what is described, I rather suspect for each one we could find a hundred or more examples where the offender high tailed it out of there. So could it happen? Sure, anything could happen. Does it make sense? No. Is it probable? No. (I would bet money more criminals flee the scene when someone shows up than remain at it).

Anyway, obviously I'm only explaining my point of view. If it holds together for you, that's ok, go for it. But for me, I find the explanation torturous and it makes my head hurt trying to follow all the twists and turns one has to make to get it to work. But then, I'm a simple fellow and I like simple things.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

As I say, it's not impossible. But the logic used to justify it is paradoxical: he's not alert enough to detect someone coming, which means he's not all that worried about being seen, but he stays because he's worried about being seen. He's concerned when required and not concerned when required to make it work. Moreover, if he's worried about being seen leaving the area, so he sticks around, why is he not worried about being seen moving away from the body to the middle of the road? If he thinks Paul would see him leave the area, then he thinks Paul can see him move away from the body too - and if he thinks Paul has seen him move away from the body then his interaction with Paul, indicating he's just found her, makes no sense (because he would have to believe Paul knows he's already been examining her, making his behaviour suspicious). Maybe he's an idiot, but he's also clever when he has to be too. Again another paradox, he's clever when necessary but he's an idiot when necessary too.

Remember, we're not talking about Paul suddenly coming upon him as in opening a door right next to him, or just across the street. Paul is still around 120 feet (40 yards) away when he reports seeing Cross/Lechmere in the middle of the street - so Cross/Lechmere would have to have become aware of Paul before that in order to move to the middle of the street. And he has to move quietly and cautiously, in order not to be seen. Let's say during Cross/Lechmere's cautious shift to the middle of the street allowed Paul to walk 10 yards (about 6 seconds). That places Paul at around 150 feet when Cross/Lechmere notices him, which is about 1/3rd the distance to the east end of Buck's row, so it's not like Paul is on top of him, and while it may risk him being seen walking away from the body, the very act of moving to the middle of the street does the same thing anyway! The difference is that sticking around leaves him at a greater risk of being identified! So he isn't concerned about being identified by Paul, but he is concerned about being seen as a shadowy figure walking down the street, but not concerned about being seen as a shadowy figure that only walks from the body to the middle of the street?

It doesn't make any sense to me, and the argument is paradoxical in how it explains his actions. He's concerned but not concerned at the same time about the same things; he's clever and an idiot at the same time. Sure, people do weird things, and sometimes those things may appear self-contradictory, so as I say, it doesn't actually violate the principles of the known universe, but as an explanation it is logically incoherent. And while I'm sure some examples of some criminals can be found doing something similar to what is described, I rather suspect for each one we could find a hundred or more examples where the offender high tailed it out of there. So could it happen? Sure, anything could happen. Does it make sense? No. Is it probable? No. (I would bet money more criminals flee the scene when someone shows up than remain at it).

Anyway, obviously I'm only explaining my point of view. If it holds together for you, that's ok, go for it. But for me, I find the explanation torturous and it makes my head hurt trying to follow all the twists and turns one has to make to get it to work. But then, I'm a simple fellow and I like simple things.

- Jeff

maybe thats the problem jeff, because serial killers are not simple fellows and do complicated and inexplicable things. is btk sending letters to the police that leads to his eventual capture paradoxical? he dosnt want to get caught yet does something uneeded that leads to his arrest. hes smart and stupid. paradoxical logic? obviously not it happened. does dahmer comfronting police while one of his victims is in their presence and then even leading them to his apartment where one of his dead victims is paradoxical? even in the ripper case we have something similar-does bury, a cunning con man, walking into a police station trying to claim his wife comitted suicide make any sense? and on it goes with serial killers. theyre complicated and do weird things. risky things. stupid things that sometimes lead to their capture. they dont operate under the same logic as you and I.

but yes i agree with you most of the time they would flee, but not always. certainly therefor you cant rule out lechmere based on this he would have run idea. certainly you understand that logic.

[FrankO]

The Lloyds account only gives Paul's surname.

Small thing Fiver, but I just checked to see that it does give his first name too. In the interview part, that is, not in the part where it's said that Mr. Paul repeated his story.

Cheers,
Frank