Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

I'll take that!

Another way of phrasing what you've said is: If Mizen's evidence was correct, then Cross lied when speaking to a police officer when walking from the crime scene; and if Cross lied when speaking to a police officer when walking from the crime scene, there is a legitimate reason to think that his behaviour was suspicious.

And to think, it only took a few weeks to get there!

[Harry D]

When Lechmere heard footsteps coming down the street, his fight-or-flight response didn't kick in, when he could've fled the scene but instead he brazened it out like a stone-cold sociopath and duped Paul. Then conversely he goes on to tell a barefaced lie to a policeman, within earshot of a third party, and run the risk of incriminating himself. Something doesn't add-up here.

[Fisherman]

When Lechmere heard footsteps coming down the street, his fight-or-flight response didn't kick in, when he could've fled the scene but instead he brazened it out like a stone-cold sociopath and duped Paul. Then conversely he goes on to tell a barefaced lie to a policeman, within earshot of a third party, and run the risk of incriminating himself. Something doesn't add-up here.

Let me see if I got this right, Harry:

First he acts chillingly calm, "like a stone-cold sociopath" although he could have chosen to flee.

Then he acts chillingly calm, "like a stone-cold sociopath" and tells a barefaced lie to a PC.

So what is it you do not think adds up?

As for the fight or flight repsponse you speak of, I trust you are aware that psychopaths, that stone-cold breed, do not HAVE such a reflex. I take it you ARE aware that they do not panick, since they are not able to?

Is it beginning to add up?

[Harry D]

Let me see if I got this right, Harry:

First he acts chillingly calm, "like a stone-cold sociopath" although he could have chosen to flee.

Then he acts chillingly calm, "like a stone-cold sociopath" and tells a barefaced lie to a PC.

So what is it you do not think adds up?

As for the fight or flight repsponse you speak of, I trust you are aware that psychopaths, that stone-cold breed, do not HAVE such a reflex. I take it you ARE aware that they do not panick, since they are not able to?

Is it beginning to add up?

He's either a cold, calculated master criminal or he's an idiot who incriminates himself by lying to a policeman. Which is it?

[Fisherman]

I take some little solace from the fact that we have at least advaced far enough to recognize that the fact that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed on whether the carman said that there had been another PC in Bucks Row or not, is in itself a legitimate reason to entertain suspicions against the carman.

The problem with this is that all the other anomalies are taken out of context and weighed on their own - as is always the case with Lechmereīs candidacy.

I would suggest that a proper police investigation as we know it - that is a modern day investigation - would start by looking at the people who could be tied to the murder scene/s on one way or another. When such a thing was undertaken, Lechmere would inevitably come into the searchlight. He was found at one of the murder sites, he was at the time alone with the victim, the body was freshly slain and would bleed for a number of minutes after Lechmere left the scene and there is nothing but his own word to rule out that he was responsible for the crime.

He would therefore need to be cleared before anybody else was looked into.

The police would therefore have the task of looking at the particulars surrounding the carman, in order to try and clear him. They would need to find out at what time he left his home, they would need to ask Robert Paul whether he could confirm that his colleague had walked in front of him down Bucks Row, to step out into the street only seconds before Paul arrived at Browns, and they would need to look at everything that was on record as having been said and done on the murder night by the carman. Lastly, they would take a look at his antecedentia, to find out whether he could be found in their records or if there was something attaching to him that may either strengthen or weaken the suggestion that he could be involved in the murder.

If they did this properly, they would find out that:

-He had presented himself to the police and inquest as Charles Cross, whereas he normally approached the authorities under the name Charles Lechmere. They would also notice that his registered name was Lechmere.
They would want an explanation to this.

-They would notice that the serving PC with whom Lechmere had spoken on the murder night, claimed that he had been told by the carman that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.
They would want an explanation to this.

They would note more discrepancies inbetween what the PC said and what the carman claimed. They would see that the carman claimed that both he and the other carman who had been present had spoken to the PC, whereas the latter claimed that one man had spoken to him.
They would want to know why this was so.

They would note that wheras the carman claimed to have told the PC about the potential seriousness of the errand, the PC himself said that he had been only been told that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row, adding that the carman had said nothing about any murder or suicide.
They would find this a discrepany in need of an explanation.

They would realize that Pauls testimony could not clear the carman, although he should realistically have been able to note his colleague walking in front of him.

Further down the line, as the murders kept occurring, they would note that the bulk of the murders happened along the two thoroughfares from East to West, starting from the outlet of Bucks Row, save one of them, that took place along a short cut from Hanbury Street to Broad Street, where the carman worked.
They would find this extremely interesting.

Looking at the two murders that took place elsewhere, they would realize that one of them happened in the very middle of where Lechmere had lived up til June of 1888, and that the other one happened more or less along the carmans working route from before that date.
They would realize that the geographical pattern fit very well with what they knew about the carman.
They would regard that as extremely encouraging in their search for the killer.

They would note that the one murder where the wounds were hidden was the one in Bucks Row - where Lechmere was found with the body.
That would make them realize that it could be due to the carman covering up the wounds to be able to con Robert Paul.

They would note that a schedule starting from Doveton Street at around 3.30 should have taken Lechmere past Bucks Row before Paul got there.
They would ask for a clarification of this.

For example.

This is how the police do their homework, and it is exactly how they SHOULD do their homework; they look intensely at anybody who can be tied to a murder spot in any shape or form, and try to clear this person. If instead material surfaces that seemingly incriminates the person further instead of exonerating him or her, they dig deeper until they have enough to leave the errand in the prosecutions hands, if this can be achieved.

This is also where the seemingly quite explicable anomalies adhering to the carman become interesting, by all fitting into the same pattern. And that pattern is one of lies and guilt.
If there was something that convinced the police that there was no need to look further into the carman, then it has gone lost. What is left seemingly speaks unanimously of a web of deception.

And that is even before we understand that the killer was responsible for both the Ripper murders AND the Torso killings...

Context is everything.

[Fisherman]

He's either a cold, calculated master criminal or he's an idiot who incriminates himself by lying to a policeman. Which is it?

How about leaving us with a third alternative, and skip the Batman and Superman stuff?

He was a callous, opportunistic and brazen psychopathic killer with a considerable amount of luck on his side.

And I still donīt see why the two examples you speak of would not add up. They add up perfectly, donīt they?

[John G]

John G: I think it a little odd that Cross wasn't at least considered a possible suspect., albeit perhaps not a very serious one. Okay, he was a bloke on his way to work, and therefore had a legitimate reason to be walking along Bucks Row. And, after all, who commits an horrific murder on their way to work anyway? Moreover, by approaching Paul, rather than, say, attempting to flee the scene, or cover up the victim's injuries before Paul arrived, he certainly didn't act like a typical murderer. Far from it.

But the wounds WERE covered up!

Still...In addition to the possibility he might have lied to PC Mizen we have Dr Llewellyn's opinion that death would be almost instantaneous. Now, of course, we also have Paul's evidence that the victim might still have been breathing which, if correct, would suggest that she may have had her throat cut just seconds earlier (assuming Llewellyn was correct), which then makes it difficult to see how anyone else but Cross could have been the attacker, particularly as he didn't see, or hear, anyone else fleeing the scene. Of course, Paul may have been mistaken, as might Dr Llewellyn, but it surely suggests that, at the very least, Cross couldn't be completely exonerated, however minor any suspicion against him may be.

All very true. And I would suggest that the circumstances would warrant significantly more than monor suspicion.

It's also odd that Wynne Baxter didn't seem to question the inconsistent accounts of Mizen and Cross, particularly as he robustly criticised witnesses at the Austin inquest who had given unreliable evidence, i e. they probably lied.

The question WHY Lechmere was not - as it seems - closely scrutinized is one of the most inteesting questions overall in the case.

All in all, there appears to be a lot of unanswered questions.

There is!

Oh dear, somewhat embarrassingly I'd forgotten about Nichols' injuries being covered! In fact to such an extent that Dr Llewellyn, of course, didn't notice the abdominal wounds when he first examined the body.

However, on a more positive note, I seem to have stumbled upon an interesting point. Keppel et al (2005) considered that posing the victim was one of JtR's signature characteristics:

"He often left the victims' legs splayed and their genitalia exposed in a sexually degrading manner, such as in the Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly murders."

Now considering that Stride may not have been a Ripper victim, or if she was he must have been disturbed, Nichols, in this respect, seems to be an anomaly. I wonder why?

[Fisherman]

Oh dear, somewhat embarrassingly I'd forgotten about Nichols' injuries being covered! In fact to such an extent that Dr Llewellyn, of course, didn't notice the abdominal wounds when he first examined the body.

However, on a more positive note, I seem to have stumbled upon an interesting point. Keppel et al (2005) considered that posing the victim was one of JtR's signature characteristics:

"He often left the victims' legs splayed and their genitalia exposed in a sexually degrading manner, such as in the Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly murders."

Now considering that Stride may not have been a Ripper victim, or if she was he must have been disturbed, Nichols, in this respect, seems to be an anomaly. I wonder why?

I donīt!

I totally agree about the posing being a characteristic of the Ripper, but I am not certain to what degree he did it for the "benefit" of anybody but himself. I think he worked to an agenda that involved something that came close to a ritualistic element. Such things will not be about playing to an audience, though, so I am thinking that perhaps he saw the fear his deeds brought on as a fringe benefit. But that is nothing but a perhaps - it may be that the posing involved one person only in the audience: himself.

Anyway, the fact that Nichols had her abdominal wounds hidden must be regarded as an anomaly, and a logical answer to WHY it happened is that the killer was still around when the body was found.

Unless it is just one of them coincidences again...

[Harry D]

If Lechmere had fled the scene of the crime, bumped into a PC and told him he was wanted by a fellow copper in Buck's Row, now that would be congruent with a suspicious man who was trying to pull a fast one. I just don't see what Lechmere had to gain from lying to Mizen, when this had the potential to incriminate him at the inquest.

[John G]

If Lechmere had fled the scene of the crime, bumped into a PC and told him he was wanted by a fellow copper in Buck's Row, now that would be congruent with a suspicious man who was trying to pull a fast one. I just don't see what Lechmere had to gain from lying to Mizen, when this had the potential to incriminate him at the inquest.

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

Informing Mizen that another PC was already in attendance, and wanted to see him, would have the advantage of giving the officer the clear impression that another constable had already questioned him [Cross] and was satisfied with his account-as well as diverting Mizen's attention by encouraging him to depart for Bucks Row, where he was apparently wanted by the other officer. Of course, 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, which would have given Mizen no reason to detain him for further questioning anyway.

Of course, in retrospect such a strategy might be regarded as risky-because Mizen would certainly contradict his account at the inquest-but with Paul alongside him he obviously had no alternative but to speak to the officer and, in this regard, his options were limited. Of course, subsequently he could simply argue that Mizen must have misunderstood him.

[Harry D]

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

Oh, but they do. Lechmere was still on a high from a fresh kill before he stepped back, dusted himself off, and used his Jedi mind powers on Paul.

[drstrange169]

>Thatīs some interesting dribbling there. But letīs go with the basics, your post:<<

Yes let's do.

Basic re: point one -"initiated"

Presumably you did look it up as you've dropped all mention of it.

Basic re: point two - That I wrote Xmere and Paul told Mizen they were the first to find the body.

No where in the sentence you underlined did I write that Xmere and Paul told Mizen they were first to find the body.

Indisputable fact.

I see now you're trying to distancing your self from your original post and are now trying to claim I implied it instead.

One has to wonder, if The Xmere case is so strong, why you need to keep falsifying things?

[drstrange169]

>>Dear me. That is a totally unsubstainable and rather shocking statement.<<

One of the advantages of being honest is I don't need to keep making things up.

That Mizen's testimony was confusing is a reported fact.
That Baxter had to qualify it, is a reported fact.
That Mizen said he did continue knocking up is a reported fact.
That he testified that he did continue knocking up is a reported fact.

Next.

[drstrange169]

>>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.

[drstrange169]

>>When Lechmere heard footsteps coming down the street, his fight-or-flight response didn't kick in, when he could've fled the scene but instead he brazened it out like a stone-cold sociopath and duped Paul. <<

Christer is very fond of quoting his "experts" but, one quote his not so fond of repeating is that Andy Griffiths thought their was nothing odd about Xmere's behaviour in his encounter with Paul.