What happened to Lechmere......

[harry]

Fisherman,
You say I am wrong.About what,regarding evidence? Nowhere have I tried to define it ,as you have.
So let me ask you a question regarding evidence relating to Nichols murder.
The murderer had to be in Nichol's company before she was murdered.What evidence places Cross in her company while she was alive?
What in your definition is relative?

[Clark]

I think the problem here is that Fisherman is basically saying that IF the murderer was still near the body at the time it was discovered, then Cross, being the only person known to have been near the body at the time it was discovered, is more likely to be the murderer.

For the rest of us who are not already convinced that Cross was guilty, that "IF" at the beginning is an insurmountable hurdle, in that we see no reason to think that the murderer remained near the body after having committed the crime.

So, if you see any value in Fisherman's premise that the murderer stayed near the body after the crime, you might agree with him that Cross is the most likely suspect.

For me, however, I see no compelling reason to accept this premise. But again, I am only a cadet at this.

[drstrange169]

>>If you think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one, I will just leave that particular discussion. It is easier for both of us that way.<<



Nobody but you has talked about the destitute prostitutes of 1888 wearing tight skirts and with good reason, the idea is ludicrous.

To keep bringing the notion up is disingenuous at best.

I agree, it's better for Ripperolgy as a whole that you do leave the discussion alone if you are going to stoop that kind of tactic.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
You say I am wrong.About what,regarding evidence? Nowhere have I tried to define it ,as you have.

Hereīs a nice example, quoted from a post of yours on this thread:

Cross is no more a suspect today,than he was in 1888,The evidence is just not there.

What has been added since 1888 is, for example:
-The name swop
-The Mizen scam
-The knowledge about his logical working routes
-The blood evidence

So very, very obviously, Lechmere is much more of a suspect today than he has ever been before. You donīt like it one little bit, but that has no bearing on the matter. And evidently, you mistake evidence for conclusive evidence.

So let me ask you a question regarding evidence relating to Nichols murder.

Ask away.

The murderer had to be in Nichol's company before she was murdered.What evidence places Cross in her company while she was alive?

What evidence places ANY person in her company before she was murdered? How about the wounds and bruises to her body? Evidently, since she did not do it to herself, SOMEBODY was with her and caused the damage.
And Charles Lechmere was found alone with her body very, very close to the time when she died.
Therefore, his presence on the murder spot belongs to the circumstantial evidence telling us that he may be the killer.
Also, the fact that nobody was seen or heard leaving the spot at this approximate time, also belongs to the circumstantial evidence pointing to Lechmere.
Looking at things the way you do, once a killer leaves a murder site, it becomes impossible to convict him of the murder since it cannot be proven that he was with the victim when the victim died. That is of course ludicrous - in such cases, circumstantial evidence will be what convicts the killer in many instances. Say, for example, that somebody sees Mr X running in a direction from the murder site, twenty seconds after the murder. To you, such a thing would not in any way constitute evidence. To me, it would. It would not be enough to convict on, it would have to be combned with more, but it is nevertheless strong and compelling evidence.

[Fisherman]

>>If you think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one, I will just leave that particular discussion. It is easier for both of us that way.<<



Nobody but you has talked about the destitute prostitutes of 1888 wearing tight skirts and with good reason, the idea is ludicrous.

To keep bringing the notion up is disingenuous at best.

I agree, it's better for Ripperolgy as a whole that you do leave the discussion alone if you are going to stoop that kind of tactic.

Actually, I have never talked about destitute prostitutes of 1888 wearing tight skirts. I said that these skirts were around, BUT BELONGED TO THE UPPER CLASSES.

I was being thorough. You are being wrong.

I prefer to be thorough.

[Fisherman]

I think the problem here is that Fisherman is basically saying that IF the murderer was still near the body at the time it was discovered, then Cross, being the only person known to have been near the body at the time it was discovered, is more likely to be the murderer.

For the rest of us who are not already convinced that Cross was guilty, that "IF" at the beginning is an insurmountable hurdle, in that we see no reason to think that the murderer remained near the body after having committed the crime.

So, if you see any value in Fisherman's premise that the murderer stayed near the body after the crime, you might agree with him that Cross is the most likely suspect.

For me, however, I see no compelling reason to accept this premise. But again, I am only a cadet at this.

I knew the distinctions BEFORE I even became a cadet, Clark.

I have not - and I never will, unless new information is added - said that another man could not have killed Nichols.

I have not - and I never will, unless new information is added - denied that such a man could have left the stage before Lechmere entered it.

But the crux of the matter is that NO SUCH MAN IS IN EVIDENCE! We can therefore not treat him as an established fact who competes with Lechmere about having been closer to Nichols.

The one and only person we know for sure was alone with Polly Nichols at the relevant passage in time is Charles Lechmere. There is nobody else. No competition at all. Nada, none, zilch.

Therefore, when we look at the factor of physical proximity, the one and only person we know was alone with and in close physical proximity to Nichols before Paul arrived, is Charles Lechmere. Therefore, he is the likeliest killer, going on this factor only.

Letīs assume, Clark, for theoriesī sake, that the killer was a man called Benny Badgerbottom, a sinister character who cut and killed Nichols, only to then leave unseen and unheard via Queen Anne Street, seconds only before Lechmere entered Bucks Row. Letīs assume that he confessed at a later stage, after the police had jailed Lechmere on suspicion that HE was the killer.

To close the case forensically, the police would be compelled to establish that Badgerbottom was telling the truth; many, many people confessed to the Ripper killings without being the real killer, and one can therefore not readily accept what people say in these kinds of errands.
So they would need to check things out.

Maybe Benny would be able to feed them something that only the killer would know, maybe not. If he could not, and if nothing else could be done to establish his guilt, he should walk free, no matter if he insisted that he was the killer.

But even if he WAS established to be the killer, tried, convicted an hanged, Charles Lechmere would STILL have been the likelier killer during the investigation, GOING ON THE FACTOR OF PHYSICAL PROXIMITY ONLY. Unless it could be establihed, that is, that Benny had been in place. And once again, no other person has been established to have been in place at the Nichols murder site!!!

But as I said, ask others. Ask the police. Ask other posters out here what they think. Ask your neighbour. Ask you mom. Ask anyone.

Turn the errand the other way around. Ask the question: Is there anybody who answers up to the demand of opportunity in this murder? If so, who is that anybody?

Do something, anything. Get a grip. Wise up. Itīs high time, Clark.

[John G]

Robert Paul said this:"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."

Therefore, as Paul is clearly making no attempt to investigate, and is obviously trying to avoid Lechmere, was there any need for Lechemere to approach him at all, assuming he was the killer?

[harry]

Fisherman,
The line you quoted is still correct.None of the four examples you cite contains evidence indicating Cross killed Nicholls,and was in her company prior to her being killed. You have not answered my question.
What you supply is information,and though it is informative of certain conditions applying at that time,none individually,nor all four taken as a whole,is evidence proving Cross murdered Nicholls.
Certainly there was someone with her in those last moments of her life,but no one,then or now knows who that person was.There is no evidence to indicate who that person was.certainly none that implicates Cross.
Yes Cross was observed near her body,but Cross did not run away.He gave an account of his movements under oath,and his account was accepted.
No one was seen running away,your example is wortless,and do not presume to know what my presumption as to evidence would be in such a situation as you describe.You couldn't be more wrong.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=harry;369633]Fisherman,
The line you quoted is still correct.None of the four examples you cite contains evidence indicating Cross killed Nicholls,and was in her company prior to her being killed.

All of them actually contain CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Lechmere was her slayer.

What you supply is information,and though it is informative of certain conditions applying at that time,none individually,nor all four taken as a whole,is evidence proving Cross murdered Nicholls.

Was there ever any evidence that was not a piece of information? What is evidence, but a carrier of information? A bullet is examined, and shown to belong to a certain gun, owned by person X - ergo, we have information that this bullet was fired from his gun. Information. Evidence.

Certainly there was someone with her in those last moments of her life,but no one,then or now knows who that person was.

That is correct, and I have never questioned it.

There is no evidence to indicate who that person was.

You are as wrong as you could be - Lechmere being found on the spot is clearly indicative of how he seemingly had opportunity to be the killer, and that belongs VERY much to the evidence. It is in evidence that he had this opportunity or seeming opportunity, and for nobody else is there similar evidence of having had that.

Certainly none that implicates Cross.

Lechmere is not indicated as being the killer by standing close to Nichols, but there is undisputable evidence that he seems to have had the opportunity.

Yes Cross was observed near her body,but Cross did not run away.

What he did AFTER having been in company with the corpse of Nichols does not in any way change the fact that he seemingly had the opportunity to kill.

He gave an account of his movements under oath,and his account was accepted.

That changes just as little, unless you believe that an accepted account is a true one. Do you?

No one was seen running away...

And that too belongs to the circumstantial evidence pointing to Lechmere.

...your example is wortless.

You are no qualified judge of that.

...and do not presume to know what my presumption as to evidence would be in such a situation as you describe.

Eh - you are flaunting it pubically, so itīs not exactly invisible, Harry.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Oh, yes - I could be a LOT more wrong. You should not despair on that point.

[Fisherman]

Robert Paul said this:"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."

Therefore, as Paul is clearly making no attempt to investigate, and is obviously trying to avoid Lechmere, was there any need for Lechemere to approach him at all, assuming he was the killer?

If Paul got a good look at him, then yes. It would subsequently be found out that the woman had been killed, and there was every risk that Paul would approach the police and say "I saw a man standing there at 3.45 this morning - here is a detailed description of him".

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggests alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.

He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.

[Fisherman]

This line in post 321:

And once again, no other person has been established to have been in place at the Nichols murder site!!!

...should of course read:

And once again, no other person has been established to have been in place at the Nichols murder site between Neils visit there at 3.15 and Lechmeres arrival!!!

[caz]

Caz: Aren't you forgetting something, Christer? Mizen wasn't told that the woman was certainly dead; there was no suggestion of murder or suicide; at most the carmen 'thought' she was probably dead. All Mizen saw fit to say at the inquest was that he was told 'a woman had been found' - not a corpse. In short, Neil was the first to find a 'body', as far as Mizen, or Neil, or anyone but the killer could have sworn to.

That may be the worst argument I have suffered hearing so far. They all knew in retrospect that Nichols was killed. Get a grip.

But the first witness on the scene to determine they were dealing with a dead body [not drunk, outraged, dying or possibly dead, but stone dead], let alone a murder by person or persons unknown, was PC Neil. If you can't see why that makes a difference in terms of sworn eye witness testimony from the scene of crime, I can't help you. What does it matter that the whole world soon found out she had been knifed to death? The two witnesses at the scene before PC Neil didn't know that at the time, or if Lechmere knew it because it was his knife, he wasn't saying.

Goodness me, Christer, this is basic stuff.

Indeed. But then why would he have said this to Mizen as an afterthought, as you suggest? Wouldn't Mizen have asked himself why Cross had waited for Paul to be out of earshot before delivering the crucial part of the message, that he was to leave his post on the orders of a fellow officer? You make Mizen come across like a gullible buffoon.

No, that was never my department - it is yours. I have no idea what you mean by afterthought here, by the way. Do you have any idea what you are on about?

I thought your argument was that Paul didn't hear Lechmere telling Mizen that a PC wanted him, because he went off part way through the conversation, giving Lechmere the chance to lie. Or do you seriously believe Lechmere wasn't accompanied by Paul [as Mizen testified] when he first spoke to Mizen, but had already taken his leave and didn't hear a word of it, and was therefore guessing the entire conversation when giving his press interview?

You seem to be struggling with your own suggested scenarios now, which is refreshing since many of us have been struggling with them for the longest time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz! Again!

I would like to start off this session by quoting myself from my latest post to John G, since it very much involves you and your efforts:

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggest alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.
He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.



And now, over to you!

caz: But the first witness on the scene to determine they were dealing with a dead body [not drunk, outraged, dying or possibly dead, but stone dead], let alone a murder by person or persons unknown, was PC Neil. If you can't see why that makes a difference in terms of sworn eye witness testimony from the scene of crime, I can't help you. What does it matter that the whole world soon found out she had been knifed to death? The two witnesses at the scene before PC Neil didn't know that at the time, or if Lechmere knew it because it was his knife, he wasn't saying.

Goodness me, Christer, this is basic stuff.

Nice try, Caz. But all witnesses referring back to the incident would be justified to speak of "the body" if they in retrospect had found out that she was dead.
Neil for example, would have been justified to say that on his former round, "the body" was not there. It is beyond ridiculous to suggest that he would say "the woman" was not there at the time.
An example is how Neil FIRST says "I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway", only to then describe how he AFTER having found Nichols went on to examine her. So initially, he knew not that she was dead: would you then have him say, sworn in as he was, I found a woman, examined the woman and then I stayed at the body while my colleague fetched the doctor?

Reality check needed, Caz!



I thought your argument was that Paul didn't hear Lechmere telling Mizen that a PC wanted him, because he went off part way through the conversation, giving Lechmere the chance to lie. Or do you seriously believe Lechmere wasn't accompanied by Paul [as Mizen testified] when he first spoke to Mizen, but had already taken his leave and didn't hear a word of it, and was therefore guessing the entire conversation when giving his press interview?

You seem to be struggling with your own suggested scenarios now, which is refreshing since many of us have been struggling with them for the longest time.

Have you compleletely taken leave of your sense, Caz? My argument is that Mizen never says that Paul said a iot to him.
It also seems that Paul was headed down Hanbury Street as Lechmere talked to Mizen.
These things are there, in the reports from the press. In no article does it say where Paul was during the conversation, but for this one, pointing Paul out as heading down Hanbury Street.

You seem to believe that Paul MUST have been with Lechmere from the beginning, at the very least. And you say that this should somehow be proven by how Paul knew what Mizen was told. Well, well...!

You are adding to mistakes here to your quickly growing pile of faulty crap:

A/ You are forgetting that Mizen says "A" man passing came up and spoke to him. Not two men. A man.
Try and make out the implications, if you will, Caz.

B/You claim that Paul would have had to be "guessing the entire conversation" in his paper interview if he was not in place to hear it.
Are you not forgetting, Caz, that Lechmere may have informed Paul what was said?

By the way, "the entire conversation" that you speak of, went like this:
...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.

So there is ONE specified item to look at in "the entire conversation", and that is the bit about Nichols being dead. Not perhaps dead, not probably dead, but dead. Otherwise, all Paul says is that Mizen was told "what he had seen".

Now, Caz, imagine if you will that Lechmere is devious enough to say to Paul:
Hey, you just walk on if you are late, and I will tell this officer over here that we have found a dead woman in Bucks Row".
Or, for that matter, imagine that Lechmere just said "I will talk to him, you just walk on", and then, when Lechmere caught up with Paul, the latter asked "What did you tell him? and Lechmere answered "Well, I told him that we found a dead woman in Bucks Row".

You may even ponder that Lechmere could have said just "Iīll take care of this", and guess what Paul would think he told Mizen?

Oh, and by the bye, if Mizen was telling the truth, then we can see that paul was NOT on the money about the woman being dead - for Mizen said that he was only informed that the woman was lying in the street.

And to finish off - we know for certain, you and I, that Paul was of the meaning that he felt Nichols stir, and that he therefore will have entertained the belief that she could be alive.
So why would he tell the paper that he had informed Mizen that Nichls was dead?

Maybe - oh, foul suggestion! - because he was reiterating what Lechmere had said to him? And if Lechmere was the clever, lying, devious bastard that I think he was, then he would do well to impress this kind of lie on Paul, considering that Lechmere would have known that there was a risk that Paul would testify later on. And in such a case, if Lechmere had only told Mizen that there was a woman lying in the street, but wanted to hide this fact if he was forced to testify, then telling Paul that he had informed Mizen that the woman was dead would be really, really smart.

Me oh my, Caz - why cannot the world be as simple as we want it to be? Here you were with this beautifully simple idea, and here I go and destroy it all. What a shame!

On a separate note, I do not exclude that Paul could have heard the intital discussion between Lechmere and Mizen, only to then gt out of earshot before Lechmere turned to lying.

So it is even MORE complicated!

It will take some digesting on your behalf, Iīm sure.

[caz]

Eh...? The police never believed Pauls assertions about a cold body, Caz. They knew it was warm.

That's the point, Christer. It doesn't matter. Paul was the only witness who could have testified in court that another man was at the scene before him, and he was claiming the body was already cold and the beat bobby should have found her sooner. If he is believed, Lechmere is in the clear. If he is shown to be a liar, Lechmere is in the clear. Paul also claimed he was the one who alerted Mizen, while claiming the other man was at the scene before him. If and when Mizen saw him and realised he was lying about their respective roles, the natural assumption would be that the whole role was being swapped and that Paul had been there first, but being anti-police had sloped off while the other man was raising the alarm with Mizen.

And ironically, it seems the police were ready to dump poor old Paul. But how would Lechmere know this? To him, it was bacon-saving time once the interview surfaced.

Er, by reading the paper and realising Paul was coming out with a load of old guff, which PC Mizen was bound to counter? It would have been entirely Paul's bacon that needed saving after that, not Lechmere's. Nobody knew a blessed thing about him, but they knew Paul's identity, and they knew he was messing with the facts to give the cops a good kicking. It doesn't get any better than that, for a killer whose aim is to get away with it and remain totally anonymous for his next outing.

Hum-de-dum-dum... Same answer - how was Lechmere to know that they would disbelieve Paul? And how could he "sit tight" when he would have known that with every passing second, the risk that he was declared the prime suspect grew? That was of course wrong, but how was he to know that?

Ridiculous that you even have to ask. Lechmere knew everything there was to know about his conversation with Mizen, and according to you, Mizen remembered the brief conversation too, word for word. Of course they would disbelieve Paul's version, once Mizen was identified as the PC in question and gave the true one. Paul would have been declared a suspect before the other, yet to be identified man, and if they ever did track Lechmere down, it would only be Paul's lying word against his for who was there first. "Paul was leaning right over the freshly slain victim when I got there, your honour. I was the one who raised the alarm, which PC Mizen can confirm, so when I read Paul's lies in the paper I didn't dare come forward as I was terrified he was trying to frame me, and would kill me if I spoke up about it."

Yeah, smashing idea - he should have said that PAUL was the finder, and then he would be off the hook, and the police would go looking for Paul instead. Absolutely ******* brilliant, Caz!
Any idea how he should tackle things when Paul was hauled in? Just stick with his story, although Paul vehemently protested? You donīt think that would have caused any further investigations or anything like that? Into both men, for example - revealing Lechmeres real name to begin with...?

See above. They had to find Lechmere first, and Paul wasn't exactly co-operating with the cops, was he? It would need Mizen to keep his eyes peeled and look for the man again, and then to recognise him, and if Paul wasn't able or willing to do the same Lechmere could claim mistaken identity. He'd have been a fool indeed to give a false name in those circumstances, so why would he? If the ripper was crafty enough to bluff his way through without the least suspicion, from being found at the scene, to lying to a policeman shortly afterwards, to lying at the inquest, to killing again within a few days of killing Nichols, all of it under a false name, are you telling me he wasn't crafty enough to steer clear of the hangman any other way? How was he ever going to be positively identified as the first man at the scene, in a court of law, in the absence of an admission or your CCTV? And even if a jury was inclined to take Paul's unsupported word for it, it would still not be evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he had actually killed Nichols, would it? That evidence - blood on his person, knife in pocket - was long gone.

But all in all, if he was the killer, Iīd say that staying undetected for a century is not half bad.

Yes, but only if. You don't get to say that Lechmere stayed undetected because of his actions until you can say that Lechmere was the killer. Putting the cart before the horse can only show the weakness of your case.

You may have to wait for the next Ripper to dance to your pipe, Caz - this once danced to his own.

He did indeed. The difference between us is that I don't see him dancing or playing with an audience, or leaving himself with no better option.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

That's the point, Christer. It doesn't matter. Paul was the only witness who could have testified in court that another man was at the scene before him, and he was claiming the body was already cold and the beat bobby should have found her sooner. If he is believed, Lechmere is in the clear. If he is shown to be a liar, Lechmere is in the clear. Paul also claimed he was the one who alerted Mizen, while claiming the other man was at the scene before him. If and when Mizen saw him and realised he was lying about their respective roles, the natural assumption would be that the whole role was being swapped and that Paul had been there first, but being anti-police had sloped off while the other man was raising the alarm with Mizen.



Er, by reading the paper and realising Paul was coming out with a load of old guff, which PC Mizen was bound to counter? It would have been entirely Paul's bacon that needed saving after that, not Lechmere's. Nobody knew a blessed thing about him, but they knew Paul's identity, and they knew he was messing with the facts to give the cops a good kicking. It doesn't get any better than that, for a killer whose aim is to get away with it and remain totally anonymous for his next outing.



Ridiculous that you even have to ask. Lechmere knew everything there was to know about his conversation with Mizen, and according to you, Mizen remembered the brief conversation too, word for word. Of course they would disbelieve Paul's version, once Mizen was identified as the PC in question and gave the true one. Paul would have been declared a suspect before the other, yet to be identified man, and if they ever did track Lechmere down, it would only be Paul's lying word against his for who was there first. "Paul was leaning right over the freshly slain victim when I got there, your honour. I was the one who raised the alarm, which PC Mizen can confirm, so when I read Paul's lies in the paper I didn't dare come forward as I was terrified he was trying to frame me, and would kill me if I spoke up about it."



See above. They had to find Lechmere first, and Paul wasn't exactly co-operating with the cops, was he? It would need Mizen to keep his eyes peeled and look for the man again, and then to recognise him, and if Paul wasn't able or willing to do the same Lechmere could claim mistaken identity. He'd have been a fool indeed to give a false name in those circumstances, so why would he? If the ripper was crafty enough to bluff his way through without the least suspicion, from being found at the scene, to lying to a policeman shortly afterwards, to lying at the inquest, to killing again within a few days of killing Nichols, all of it under a false name, are you telling me he wasn't crafty enough to steer clear of the hangman any other way? How was he ever going to be positively identified as the first man at the scene, in a court of law, in the absence of an admission or your CCTV? And even if a jury was inclined to take Paul's unsupported word for it, it would still not be evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he had actually killed Nichols, would it? That evidence - blood on his person, knife in pocket - was long gone.



Yes, but only if. You don't get to say that Lechmere stayed undetected because of his actions until you can say that Lechmere was the killer. Putting the cart before the horse can only show the weakness of your case.



He did indeed. The difference between us is that I don't see him dancing or playing with an audience, or leaving himself with no better option.

Love,

Caz
X

Thereīs one of them loooong posts again about how you think there was a better alternative way of acting on Lechmereīs behalf if he was the killer. So here is, once again, my standard answer:

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggest alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.
He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.


That really is all that needs to be said, Caz.