Lechmere Continuation Thread

[John G]

Fisherman tapped out with his not-so-thinly veiled insults. Moving on...



Would it heck. Try putting yourself in the "killer's" shoes. You've just committed murder, you're carrying a bloody knife in your backpocket. Now, I would imagine the last thing you would want is to be dealing with the law. What if Mizen had decided to search the pair of them? No, the killer would want to escape the hot-zone without any interaction with the police if he could help it. Lechmere could've helped it but chose not to.

Not necessarily. The difficulty he has is that he's been seen near to a dead body by a witness (Paul). Nor can he know for certain whether Paul suspects him of any wrongdoing. Moreover, if he just leaves the scene without reporting to the police what he'd discovered, the police would have surely been entitled to treat him as a serious suspect. And if he was the killer, and is intention was to flee the scene without reporting the incident, why did he call Paul over? In fact, this action, from the perspective of Lechmere being the murderer, would suggest that he intended to brazen it out and, furthermore. finding a police officer would be consistent with this strategy.

Of course, he could have suggested to Paul that they split up in search of a police officer, but that would entail a risk: they might give conflicting accounts to different officers, which would seem suspicious, or worse, Paul might say something that casts suspicion on him.

Subsequently informing PC Mizen that he was wanted by another officer would certainly be risky-as Paul might contradict him-but it had the advantage of ensuring that Mizen wouldn't ask him any awkward questions, as he would assume that the other officer had spoken to him and was satisfied with his account.


As for the possibility that Mizen might search the pair of them, would he have been entitled to do this? What were the stop and search rules in 1888?

And don't forget, according to at least one report, PC Mizen was simply told that he was wanted in "Bakers Row" and that "a woman has been found there"( Times, September 4, 1888). So, in these circumstances, what grounds would Mizen have for searching Cross or, say, checking for blood stains?

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Fisherman tapped out with his not-so-thinly veiled insults. Moving on...

Only you donīt get to decide who gets to express their views on a public forum, Harry.
But I can see how you are outraged by my insults - a guy like you who never resorts to any such thing yourself at all would naturally be.

Would it heck. Try putting yourself in the "killer's" shoes. You've just committed murder, you're carrying a bloody knife in your backpocket. Now, I would imagine the last thing you would want is to be dealing with the law. What if Mizen had decided to search the pair of them? No, the killer would want to escape the hot-zone without any interaction with the police if he could help it. Lechmere could've helped it but chose not to.

As you said, you cannot see the logic of this suggestion. John G is not any Lechmere proponent, but he nevertheless can see the logic of he suggestion. He thinks it is the better suggestion altogether.

So, you see, Harry, YOUR logic may be the flawed one here. YOU may be wrong.

A thinly veiled insult, I know, but there you are.

[Harry D]

Fisherman tapped out with his not-so-thinly veiled insults. Moving on...

I still think his best option, innocent or guilty, would have been to go with Paul. That way he could have ensured that anything Paul might say to a police officer which cast suspicion upon him, however slightly, could be challenged or explained. Moreover, is it likely that Paul would have said anything incriminating about Cross, to say a police officer, with Cross stood beside him?

Would it heck. Try putting yourself in the "killer's" shoes. You've just committed murder, you're carrying a bloody knife in your backpocket. Now, I would imagine the last thing you would want is to be dealing with the law. What if Mizen had decided to search the pair of them? No, the killer would want to escape the hot-zone without any interaction with the police if he could help it. Lechmere could've helped it but chose not to.

[Fisherman]

I still think his best option, innocent or guilty, would have been to go with Paul. That way he could have ensured that anything Paul might say to a police officer which cast suspicion upon him, however slightly, could be challenged or explained. Moreover, is it likely that Paul would have said anything incriminating about Cross, to say a police officer, with Cross stood beside him?

What is seldom discussed is how there may have been a calculated risktaking involved when Lechmere walked out of Bucks Row with Robert Paul. If we work from the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, then there can be little doubt that he would be interested in leaving the murder site in as calm and inconspicious a way as possible. Leaving with Paul offered the top of the line option in that department.
The downside, as suggested by the naysayers, would be that Lechmere risked to be faced with a PC along the way, in which case he would need to take evasive action.
But there was of course always the chance that Lechmere and Paul would NOT bump into any PC. And that may have been something that Lechmere recognized as the very best solution - to leave with Paul, not to meet any PC, and then to shrug his shoulders together with his fellow carman, hoping that the latter would let things lie.

As it happens, Lechmere was not lucky enough to avoid the police. But then again, he DID have an evasive action prepared when it happened. If, that is, Mizen was truthful. For if he was, then Lechmere was a liar and almost certainly the killer.

[John G]

Not if Lechmere & Paul had agreed to split up in their search for a policeman. Regardless of what Paul would've told the copper, there would be nothing to incriminate Lechmere. However, if Lechmere still had the murder weapon on his person (which I assume Fisherman claims) or any kind of blood residue on his clothing, he would want to avoid any interactions with the police if he could help it. Except Lechmere didn't do that.

I still think his best option, innocent or guilty, would have been to go with Paul. That way he could have ensured that anything Paul might say to a police officer which cast suspicion upon him, however slightly, could be challenged or explained. Moreover, is it likely that Paul would have said anything incriminating about Cross, to say a police officer, with Cross stood beside him?

[Fisherman]

Harry D:

If Lechmere acts unconventionally, he's shifty and must be the killer.

Once again, no. People who act"unconventionally "must not be killers. But of course, the police WILL be looking for unconventional behaviour in murder cases. Do you consider that in any way strange?

If Lechmere acts conventionally, he's playing innocent and must be the killer.

Not at all. Conventionally acting people are normally innocent people. And indeed, it is not the conventional behaviour of the carman that I find suspicious - it is the unconventional parts that are of interest.

That's what I mean when I talk about "backwards-logic".

I see. So what do you think of people who say "If he acted conventionally, he is probably innocent. If he acted unconventionally on the other hand, then eeeehhhh - he is probably innocent just the same.

Is that not just as backwards? Or?

You are the one who attested that if Lechmere & Paul split up to look for coppers that this could come back to haunt him.

I am one of the people who think so, yes.

I fail to see your logic here.

Yes, I know. And Edwards logic. And Andy Griffithsī logic. Etcetera.

Let's say that Paul bumps into Mizen while Lechmere carries on his merry way.

Yes, letīs! And...?

What does this mean for Lechmere? Nothing at all.

If he was the killer, Iīd say that it means potential trouble. It would mean that Mizen was served with Pauls version of the events, instead of Lechmereīs.

It wouldn't change his version of events, and at least in this scenario there's a chance that he'll make a getaway without having to deal with a policeman, which believe it or not is the last thing a criminal wants to do.

Eh...? What are you talking about? It would not change his version of events? How so? If Paul testified at the inquest that Lechmere was the one man whospoke to Mizen, for example, then Lechmere had better change his version of events. And so on.
You need to rethink this, Harry. Or to start thinking.

Except for Professor Moria- *ahem*... I mean Lechmere, that is.

Iīm afraid of you are so totally impressed with a man who lies his way out of a tight spot, then it says more about your demands intellectual supremacy than it does about the actual state of affairs.

[Harry D]

Therefore, whether he was innocent or guilty, he would have been taking a big risk by allowing Paul to go in search of a police officer by himself, because he couldn't be sure what he might say. For instance, he might have seriously implicated him by telling PC Mizen, "I've just come across a man standing over a woman's body; I believe she might be dead. However, I don't know where he is now, because whilst I decided to do my civic duty and go in search of a police officer, he decided to quickly depart the scene."

Not if Lechmere & Paul had agreed to split up in their search for a policeman. Regardless of what Paul would've told the copper, there would be nothing to incriminate Lechmere. However, if Lechmere still had the murder weapon on his person (which I assume Fisherman claims) or any kind of blood residue on his clothing, he would want to avoid any interactions with the police if he could help it. Except Lechmere didn't do that.

[John G]

The problem Cross had, as I suggested previously, was that he lived and worked locally. And, of course, Paul could identify him. Not only that, even if he wasn't distinctively dressed, i.e. as a carman, the police may have been able to narrow down his likely profession based on the time he was leaving for work. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the police would have been able to find him should he not have come forward.

Therefore, whether he was innocent or guilty, he would have been taking a big risk by allowing Paul to go in search of a police officer by himself, because he couldn't be sure what he might say. For instance, he might have seriously implicated him by telling PC Mizen, "I've just come across a man standing over a woman's body; I believe she might be dead. However, I don't know where he is now, because whilst I decided to do my civic duty and go in search of a police officer, he decided to quickly depart the scene."

That certainly wouldn't have been what Cross would have wanted!

[Harry D]

If Lechmere acts unconventionally, he's shifty and must be the killer. If Lechmere acts conventionally, he's playing innocent and must be the killer. That's what I mean when I talk about "backwards-logic".

You are the one who attested that if Lechmere & Paul split up to look for coppers that this could come back to haunt him. I fail to see your logic here. Let's say that Paul bumps into Mizen while Lechmere carries on his merry way. What does this mean for Lechmere? Nothing at all. It wouldn't change his version of events, and at least in this scenario there's a chance that he'll make a getaway without having to deal with a policeman, which believe it or not is the last thing a criminal wants to do. Except for Professor Moria- *ahem*... I mean Lechmere, that is.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: You've got to love this.

No, you donīt have to love it at all. Itīs anybodys decision. But it would be nice with some little respect. Not that I think you are able to deliver it, but anyway...

Let's get this right...

Yes, please - but can you? I doubt it. Letīs see!

Lechmere acting in a completely rational manner is therefore indicative of his guilt?

No, not at all. Many people act rationally and are totally unguilty. So you are wrong on that score.

This is why you'll never win with any suspect-based argument, because the proponent will almost always employ this kind of backwards logic.

If you think my opponents have their logic backwards, I can live with that. I actually agree most of the time.

The scenario you posited (i.e. Lechmere & Paul splitting up) is exactly what the killer would've wanted, that is to get the hell out of there before he can incriminate himself.

But I posited no such scenario. I think they went from the murder spot to where Mizen was in company, and that Lechmere took it upon himself to speak to the PC. I think Lechmere chose not to run since he knew that running is a very good way of incriminating yourself. And I trust you are saying that he would not want to do that...?


Instead, you argue that Lechmere stayed with Paul because he wanted to control the situation because he's an evil mastermind who lies to policemen in front of a witness.

Grow up. The "evil mastermind" stuff is soooo childish. Serial killers are very often psychopaths - fact. Many of these serialists have been men with a very high IQ - fact. They do not panick, since they cannot panick - fact. Instead, they are able to act ratioinally under pressure - fact.
That does not amount to any evil mastermind, though. It amounts to a person who is able to make rational choices under pressure, nothing else.
But you want a perfectly feasible suggestion to look like a very odd one, so you drag this mastermind shite in, time after time. Donīt. It makes you look sillier than necessary.

How would Lechmere be in anymore trouble in the splitting-up scenario than he would by sticking with Paul and lying to a copper?

He would not necessarily be in any trouble at all if he fled. But he COULD run into a PC, and if he DID, then he would be neck-high in ****.
If he stuck with Paul, and left Bucks Row calmly, he would not look like the killer. And from there, he could take control of the situation and steer it into something that took him out of harms way. It is a manner of thinking that is very, very consistent with psychopathy. Psychopaths are people who are very good liars, and able to convince others that they are NOT lying.
You may now of course employ the clever idea that we do not know that Lechmere WAS a psychopath, and I can answer as I always do, that IF he was the killer, then he WAS a psychopath. And then you can start gabbing on about circular reasoning, and we can take it all another lap around the course.
Iīm gain if you are.

Lechmere's story would've been corroborated and they would still have no reason to suspect him, let alone charge him with any crime.

Unless you have understood this before, the aim of what a lying psychopath does, is actually to create a situation where he can stay unsuspected. BIG surprise, eh?
Whatever you mean about Lechmereīs story being corroborated, I can only say that there is no evidence whatsoever that this happened when it comes to the vital parts of the story.

[Harry D]

He would have had alternative choices. He could have said, "Nah, letīs skip looking for a PC", but that would make him look suspicious afterwards. He could have said "You go west and I will go east, looking for a PC", and he would get out of Bucks Row. But his face would be known, and when/if Paul found a PC and told him that there was this other man who stood alone by the body, he would be in trouble.

You've got to love this. Let's get this right... Lechmere acting in a completely rational manner is therefore indicative of his guilt? This is why you'll never win with any suspect-based argument, because the proponent will almost always employ this kind of backwards logic. The scenario you posited (i.e. Lechmere & Paul splitting up) is exactly what the killer would've wanted, that is to get the hell out of there before he can incriminate himself. Instead, you argue that Lechmere stayed with Paul because he wanted to control the situation because he's an evil mastermind who lies to policemen in front of a witness. How would Lechmere be in anymore trouble in the splitting-up scenario than he would by sticking with Paul and lying to a copper? Lechmere's story would've been corroborated and they would still have no reason to suspect him, let alone charge him with any crime.

[Fisherman]

John G: Paul's account in the Lloyds interview is confusing, as he seems to be contradicting what was said in evidence at the inquest-that might indicate that he was somewhat of an attention seeker, who wanted to make it seem as though his role was more important than it actually was.

Absolutely. Either this is true, or the reporter took it upon himself to spice things up, after having realized that he had only gotten hold of the next most interesting carman. Whichever applies, Pauls inquest testimony and the Lloyds article cannot both be true.

Thus, in the Lloyds interview he strongly implies that he alone went in search of a police officer, whilst presumably Cross continued on his journey to work:"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

Exactly so.

He's then reported as saying that the "woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time...." However, at the inquest we're told that the victim's face felt warm and, far from believing she'd been "dead some time", Paul was of the opinion that she was still alive: "I think she is still breathing...."

Yep.

Regarding Cross, I don't think he would have simply "disappeared in to the night ". He was clearly a local man so the police would have had little problem in subsequently identifying him. And, by not going in search of a police officer his actions would have appeared extremely suspicious.

True enough - one would expect him to fetch help if he really thought that the woman was dead or perhaps even dying.

However, if he was the killer I doubt he would have wanted Paul tagging along whilst he looked for a police officer: Paul could have contradicted him, i.e. as regards another officer already being in attendance, and might have said something that cast suspicion on him. But he had an easy way out of this predicament: he could simply have told Paul, "Look there's no point in both of us being even later for work-you get off, whilst I look for a policeman. Then, when he found Mizen, he would have had no fear of being contradicted by Paul and there would be no witnesses to their conversation, so if the account was disputed it would be his word against Mizen's.

I think that Lechmere profited from leaving Bucks Row in company with Paul - not only did he get time to find out just how much his fellow carman had seen or heard, he also teamed up with a man, making it look as if they were jointly walking to work. The police would reasonably be looking for a fleeing killer, not two men walking to work.
My belief is that they - on Pauls suggestion - agreed to go looking for a PC, and when they saw Mizen, I think that Lechmere said "Thereīs an officer, Iīll tell him what we found, so you just walk ahead and Iīll catch up with you!"

That is how I think the evidence should be read.

[Fisherman]

What was said of course is a matter of belief,from information that has been handed down.
Whatever,why would they go looking for a policeman unless they(Cross and Paul)felt one was needed?And it's Shylock not Sherlock.

We KNOW that Paul felt that a PC was needed, so thatīs why they went looking for one. How does that clear Lechmere?

He would have had alternative choices. He could have said, "Nah, letīs skip looking for a PC", but that would make him look suspicious afterwards. He could have said "You go west and I will go east, looking for a PC", and he would get out of Bucks Row. But his face would be known, and when/if Paul found a PC and told him that there was this other man who stood alone by the body, he would be in trouble.

If he was the killer, he acted cool as a cucumber, and quite rationally. Teaming up with Paul would make him look like one out of two carmen going to work in company. And the police would not be looking for that kind of people. If we add to this that the contacted a PC, that would practically ensure that they would be regrded as kosher. However, it would be vital to Lechmere that this PC was NOT informed that HE was the finder or that the errand was a grave one.

And lo and behold, that exact information seems to have been withhold from Mizen.

But of course, that will be sheer coincidence, as always.

[John G]

>>Perhaps. However, people don't always act logically in stressful situations. <<

As Christer noted in post 723, he thinks Xmere wasn't stressed. If that's true he could have avoided the need to lie to Mizen, infact he could have avoided Mizen alltogether.


"Thus, if he was the killer we might hypothesize that he would be desperate not to be closely scrutinized by Mizen, i.e. in respect of questioning, or regarding his clothing, which may have been blood stained. And, of course, he might still have the murder weapon in his possession. Moreover, he wouldn't have wanted Mizen to converse with Paul for too long, particularly as his account might differ fundamentally from his own, such as whether Nichols was seriously injured."

If Xmere was desperate enough to avoid all of the above, all he had to do, when he was in Buck's Row, was to say to Paul, "You look for a copper that way, Ill go and see if I can get one the other way."

If Xmere was a cold and calculating killer who wanted to involve himself in the investigation, he then have hidden the knife, found Thain and Bingo!

Or he could have then simply disappeared into the night.



>>... if Mizen's account is correct he also played down the incident, by merely stating that "a woman had been found there" [Bucks Row], not mentioning that she might be dead or seriously injured ...<<

The problem with this is Paul specifically said in his Lloyds interview that Mizen was told Paul thought she was dead. Xmere stated the same thing under oath at the inquest.

And then there is Mizen's rather odd answer in the Star,
"He did not say anything about murder or suicide."

Why didn't he just say, "he did not say anything about her being dead."?
His answer seems to imply he knew she might be dead , but didn't know she had been potentially murdered or committed suicide.

Paul's account in the Lloyds interview is confusing, as he seems to be contradicting what was said in evidence at the inquest-that might indicate that he was somewhat of an attention seeker, who wanted to make it seem as though his role was more important than it actually was.

Thus, in the Lloyds interview he strongly implies that he alone went in search of a police officer, whilst presumably Cross continued on his journey to work:"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

He's then reported as saying that the "woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time...." However, at the inquest we're told that the victim's face felt warm and, far from believing she'd been "dead some time", Paul was of the opinion that she was still alive: "I think she is still breathing...."

Regarding Cross, I don't think he would have simply "disappeared in to the night ". He was clearly a local man so the police would have had little problem in subsequently identifying him. And, by not going in search of a police officer his actions would have appeared extremely suspicious.

However, if he was the killer I doubt he would have wanted Paul tagging along whilst he looked for a police officer: Paul could have contradicted him, i.e. as regards another officer already being in attendance, and might have said something that cast suspicion on him. But he had an easy way out of this predicament: he could simply have told Paul, "Look there's no point in both of us being even later for work-you get off, whilst I look for a policeman. Then, when he found Mizen, he would have had no fear of being contradicted by Paul and there would be no witnesses to their conversation, so if the account was disputed it would be his word against Mizen's.

[harry]

What was said of course is a matter of belief,from information that has been handed down.
Whatever,why would they go looking for a policeman unless they(Cross and Paul)felt one was needed?And it's Shylock not Sherlock.