Lechmere The Psychopath

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS

I personally find your post well thought out and very reasonable on many points.
The only issue being we do not know if Lechmere used Cross often but it is fair to hypocise that he may have.

And I don't consider your post long; a post is as long as it needs to be to communicate the ideas in it.
If you look at some of the exchanges between Fishermen and myself you will get a view on LONG LONG posts.


All the best


Steve[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that Steve

I just can't see any advantage gained by using that name because he didn't disappear. He wasn't trying to say when he was spoken to after August 31st 'not me mate, my names Lechmere not Cross. I wasn't even there.' And so if there was no advantage to be had there is nothing suspicious about it.

Regards
Herlock

Ps what have I done wrong here? Why isn't your quote shaded?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure that catsmeat would be particularly bloody - as I understand it, the horseflesh was boiled by the slaughterers before it was sold, and often dyed blue to prevent it being sold on for human consumption (rather than for cats).

Hello Joshua

You could be right there. It sounds logical to me. If he had 'helped out' that morning he would have had to leave home even earlier. If you had an early start job, and helped out in another job, surely you would do it at a more 'helpful, sensible time, rather than, say, at 2am?
Could he have even used the Catsmeat job excuse if questioned? What if the police had asked and the people who he sometimes help had said 'no he hasn't been around helping out today.'
I can't see a killer, with any concern at all for not getting caught, risking turning up for work with blood on him that he hadn't noticed and therefore hadn't cleaned off.

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's explore this point with respect to risk mitigation for a moment. Clearly the killer (or killers) of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly, was concerned with mitigating risk, leaving aside the obvious fact that no one was ever convicted for any of these women's murders. Although, there is inherent and obvious risk involved in committing murder, clearly the killer (or killers) didn't wish to be caught. As the OP points out, the murder sites provided enough cover to allow the killer to murder - and in most cases - mutilate the victim, and to escape unobserved. Choosing a suitable spot allowed the killer(s) to indulge his compulsions, to remain alive, free, and able to continue indulging his compulsions. And that bring us to Cross/Lechmere. Regarding him, let's ask one question: Did he behave like a man who - if he had just killed Nichols - wished to mitigate risk and emerge from the situation in Buck's/Baker's Row and at the Nichols inquest uncaptured, unkilled, and free to continue doing what he was compelled to do?

Hi Patrick

I understand your point. Another question though might be : if he was the killer, he said if I recall correctly, that he heard Robert Paul when he was around 40 yards away, why didn't he just run or even walk away? He originally said that he thought Nichols' body was a tarpaulin. It was in a dark area and not immediately recognisable as a body until he crossed over and looked closer. By walking or running away it would have been, what 20 seconds before Paul reached the position, he may not even have noticed the body, but even if he had he would have had to walk over there to discover it was a body. Cross would have been long gone and in the clear. No he stayed and called over a passer by. By far the best option for a killer would have been to walk/run away.

Regards

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very interesting, Joshua. What are the sources?

Cheers, Pierre

I believe that they ate Catsmeat without a sauces

Sorry Pierre, I can never resist a stupid pun.

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Pierre;417867]

Well, well, well. Hi there. Firstly, we do not know what sort of motives Lechmere could have had for being in Buck´s Row, were it not for going to work.

Certainly it was "legitimate" for any man to go to a pub or for a bit of food at any time during the night / early morning if he wished to do so.

He may also have been doing something else without having to be the Whitechapel killer. He may for example have visited a prostitute.

As you can see, these suggestions have the same value as the suggestion that he was a serial killer, since they are all based on "if" and "may have".

I agree Pierre. Guilty or innocent he could have come up with any number of excuses for being there. The only point that I'd make, and it's a minor one, a lie/excuse made up on the spot could have been found out later. He also may have appeared suspicious or shifty to the police. But obviously we can't know for certain.


Fisherman would say because Lechmere was "a psychopath". That is also the question in my thread here.

We don't even have any evidence that he was an unpleasant man never mind a psychopath. I just don't see a man who evaded capture, and has remained undiscovered for nearly 130 years, taking unnecessary risks.



And maybe she did! But, actually, Nichols was the victim closest to Lechmere´s home. So that is the explanation as to why he found that particular victim. Not that he was the Whitechapel murderer, since there is no evidence for Lechmere having been at any other of the murder sites.

Again, surely this is to do with risk. Would he have created an 'unnecessary'
suspicion at home, however slight?



Apparently steady and normal hard-working men do become serial killers. And people are amazed and ask the same question as you do here.

But how many times have serial killers retired to a normal life



There were gloves.

I certainly don't wear gloves on my feet, knees or elbows. Any area where he could have unknowingly have gotten blood on and not noticed.



And using another name could also be interesting if a witness gained some kind of advantage from it.

It would. But he didn't.


People have been trying to understand if Mizen had a motive for saying what he did or if Lechmere had a motive for stating what he did. Usually if they think either one of them had a motive, they also think that the one with a motive was a liar. If they do not do this, they try to explain it with misunderstanding or if


If Lechmere did lie to Mizen I see no advantage gained. Except possibly to combat criticism from Mizen for leaving the body.


An interesting hypothesis since Fisherman tries to give us a story about the cool psychopath Lechmere. New research question here everyone: Was Lechmere upset - and therefore not a psychopath?



Yes. If you postulate that a serial killer has stopped, you must have sources explaining it.

Surely the only other murders were Mackenzie and Coles. Most believe Kelly to have been the last.



I see no sources where there must be sources. So I see no serial killer. But I see a witness. And for this, there are sources. These sources also give us indications of problems in the past.

I also see only a witness

Cheers, Pierre

Regards


Herlock

Pierre I'm sorry that I haven't got the hang of this highlighting /not highlighting business. Technology and me are old enemies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Will someone please explain how you type responses within a quote so that only the original quote part is highlighted. It appears to be beyond me at the moment.

Thanks all

Herlock

[John G]

We are not discussing statistics, no.

The head injuries/substance abuse matter is impossible to comment on, of course, that should go without saying. There is no evidence either way, and therefore it can not be ruled in OR out.

What percentage of serial killers do I think targetted victims whilst on the way to work?

What a question!

Let me ask you this: If we have a situation, a purely theoretical one, where ten men, all destined to become serial killers, were only offered a possibility to kill in the early morning hours, before they were due at work - how many of them do you think would not become serial killers on account of not accepting and using that option?

Ten? Five? Or none of them?

Personally, I am going for the latter option.

The reason I asked the question is because it seemed a very implausible thing for a serial killer to do. And I very much doubt that any serial killer would be limited to the extent you suggest, i.e. only being able to kill early in the morning prior to work.

[Abby Normal]

Will someone please explain how you type responses within a quote so that only the original quote part is highlighted. It appears to be beyond me at the moment.

Thanks all

Herlock

when your responding to someone and want to highlight specific quotes of theres you cut(copy)and paste that part of there post in your response. then highlight that part and then click on the quote icon at the top that looks like a speech bubble (fourth icon from left). It will look like this:

It appears to be beyond me at the moment.

[John Wheat]

I very much doubt that any serial killer would be limited to the extent you suggest, i.e. only being able to kill early in the morning prior to work.

That's because they wouldn't John. I've said this before but the Lechmere theory is based on lies and bullshit.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;417880]

Regards


Herlock

Pierre I'm sorry that I haven't got the hang of this highlighting /not highlighting business. Technology and me are old enemies.

Hi and thanks for you reply, it was interesting.

By the way, I think the last victim in 1888 was Kelly and in 1889 McKenzie and the Pinchin Street case.

Cheers, Pierre

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick

I understand your point. Another question though might be : if he was the killer, he said if I recall correctly, that he heard Robert Paul when he was around 40 yards away, why didn't he just run or even walk away? He originally said that he thought Nichols' body was a tarpaulin. It was in a dark area and not immediately recognisable as a body until he crossed over and looked closer. By walking or running away it would have been, what 20 seconds before Paul reached the position, he may not even have noticed the body, but even if he had he would have had to walk over there to discover it was a body. Cross would have been long gone and in the clear. No he stayed and called over a passer by. By far the best option for a killer would have been to walk/run away.

Regards

Herlock

That's all part of the point. One I've been making for years now. If we step through what I have referred to in the past as Cross/Lechmere's "decision points", we see him consistently submitting himself - completely needlessly - to scrutiny and, were he Nichols' killer, toward danger, arrest, detention, death.

You make a good point. Lechmere stated that he heard Paul some 40 yards off. I've made the point many times. If this is true, RUNNING is hardly necessary. He needed only to walk into the darkness, into the maze of the East End to avoid detection.

But, let's try and stay away from what Cross/Lechmere himself tells us. After all, some are trying to sell him as a "serialist". So, let's play along and depend on what we've gotten from sources other than the man himself.

He's in almost total darkness, in Buck's Row. We know this because Paul inspected the body but noticed no injuries. No blood. Both of which became apparent moments later in the light of Neil's lantern. Paul tells us he saw "a man". And he, Paul, tried to walk around that man. But, the man, Lechmere, didn't allow him to simply walk on. He walked toward him. Paul still didn't wish to acknowledge the man. After all, this was a dangerous spot, upon which many had been knocked down. Paul continued on until the man - undeterred by Paul's attempt to avoid him - TOUCHES his shoulder and asks him to "come see this woman". Now, wouldn't Paul's desire to avoid Cross/Lechmere, were he the killer of Nichols', have been a good thing, what he WANTED? So, we have a few decisions to this point. Let's review them with - to quote the inimitable Christer - with "an eye on Lechmere being guilty", shall we?

1. After killing and disemboweling Nichols, Cross/Lechmere walks just a few feet from the body and waits for a man walking toward him down Buck's Row. He doesn't walk away from Paul into darkness. Alas, he has an advantage in that he KNOWS which way Paul is headed. Paul has no idea which way Cross/Lechmere is headed. Rather than simply walk toward Paul, thus passing him before Paul reached Nichols body, he remained on the spot. An odd decision for a killer not wishing to be caught.

2. After killing and disemboweling Nichols and waiting in place for Paul to reach him, Cross/Lechmere refuses to allow Paul to pass him by. Paul pays no notice of the body. He tries to avoid contact with Cross/Lechmere, who he could never describe as it is pitch black in Buck's Row. Yet, Cross/Lechmere approaches Paul, who STILL ties to avoid him. Undeterred, Cross/Lechmere wants to be certain he gets this man's attention and he TOUCHES HIS SHOULDER and asks him to "come see this woman". Had he just killed Nichols' how do we explain this behavior? Obviously, the truth is that he was a man who came across a woman on the pavement at 3:45am and his behavior reinforces that. But, here we are assuming he killed Nichols. So, how do we make sense of it? We can't. NO EXPLANATION yet given makes sense. To ascribe this behavior to a killer with a grand plan to avoid capture and suspicion makes no sense, however badly we wish it did.

3. Now our killer goes to the body with Paul. He's killed her, disemboweled her, practically chased down and BEGGED a passerby to come view his handy work, TOUCHING the man's shoulder with the very hand with which he's just butchered a prostitute WITHOUT fear of transferring blood to the man's clothing, and NOW he goes with the man to check this woman out. Our killer is certain - for some unknown reason - that Paul isn't a smoker carrying a match with which to light the scene. He knew that as soon as he heard his footsteps and begged him to come view his victim. So, the cunning plan proceeds perfectly and it's too dark for Paul to notice blood or injury. Paul tells Saucy Jack that he thinks she's breathing, he detects a "slight movement"! PERFECT! Our killer can then say, "I knew it! Another drunk passed out! Let's be on our way!" But...he doesn't say that. He says that he disagrees and that he think's she dead. Paul the pasty then wishes to MOVE the body. Having just gutted this poor woman, in the dark, Chuck the Ripper eschews this opportunity to contact the body and explain any blood that may be on his clothing. He decides....no. He refuses to touch the body. At all. The true believers will tell you it's because moving the body would have revealed the injuries. Hmmmm. He's now concerned about the injuries being revealed? He forced this poor fellow to come see the body. He wasn't concerned that he had a match which would easily have revealed the injuries. But now he's worried the man may notice. Even though he begged him to come see. Wouldn't let him walk on. Touched his shoulder. "Come see this woman." Now he's worried the man might see the injuries that - were he her killer - HE KNEW WERE THERE?

4. So, he's done for Nichols, dissected her, run Paul down and forced him to view his victims body, he's refused an opportunity to explain his victims blood on his person by NOT assisting Paul in moving the body....and now he decides to go with Paul......IN SEARCH OF A POLICMAN. Remember, he knew which way Paul was headed. Paul did not know which was HE was headed. He could have VERY EASILY said, "I'm due at work that way (the other direction down Buck's Row). I'll look for a cop my way, you look your way, and we'll both send help should we find it." No. He passed that opportunity up in favor of ACTUALLY heading off with Paul looking for a cop. He never tries to leave Paul and UREAKA! they find a PC, Mizen, in Baker's Row. Again, he so CERTAIN that there is no blood on his person that can be revealed by Mizen's lantern that he's perfectly comfortable with this part of the plan. He knows Mizen won't check him out. Or search for the murder weapon hidden in his coat. Or ask the men to lead him BACK to the body. This is going PERFECTLY for our killer so for! Now, the men tell Mizen that there's a woman, dead or drunk, lying in Buck's Row. But, our killer tells Mizen that, for his part, he think's she's DEAD! Good strategy. I mean, he'd now, right! He killed her. Mizen claims that Cross/Lechmere told him he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. Paul doesn't corroborate Mizen. Cross/Lechemere doesn't corroborate Mizen. Alas, we're asked to believe Mizen. Only Mizen. Okay. Let's believe Mizen. So, how did our killer relate this information to Mizen without Paul contradicting him? It's so OBVIOUS! It's the Mizen Scam! He did it out of poor, dumb, gullible Paul's earshot! That's the theory. So, follow this: He kills Nichols, guts her, hears a guy coming, steps a few feet from her rather than walking away, forces the guy to examine the woman with him, refuses an opportunity to move the body and explain any blood, decides to accompany the man on a quest to find a PC, they FIND a PC, he TELLS the PC that he - the killer - thinks the woman is DEAD, and THEN he pulls the PC aside to tell him a BS story, one his companion KNOWS is not true, without fear that Paul would find his heading off for a secret conversation with the PC suspicious, that he'd wonder what they talked about, that he would refuse to stand idly while he chatted up Mizen out of earshot. Oh, and remember. Paul says nothing, either in Lloyd's or at the inquest, about a secret conversation.

5. Speaking of Lloyd's and inquest. Let's stick with the fantasy that Cross/Lechmere is our man. He killed Nichols. But, wait. He SHOWS UP at the inquest 48 hours after the murder? BUT WHY? Because of the bombshell that was Paul's statement in Lloyd's you see. That bombshell has Paul crediting himself with ALL of the action. The killer is merely "a man". That's the extent of his description. A man. Paul saw a man by the body. And from there Paul is the prime actor. He inspects the body. He goes in search of Mizen. HE tell us that Mizen acted improperly and that it was a great shame as he'd just been told the WOMAN WAS DEAD! Oh, and another thing....Mizen didn't ask either man his name, where he lived, worked, or anything at all. He merely said, "Alright"....and walked on. Yet...here is the killer. At the inquest. Ready to testify. Just as he approached Paul. Just as he went to find Mizen. Now he's at the inquest. Evil genius or innocent man? Clearly we know the answer. It's obvious to anyone with common sense and no agenda.

[Michael W Richards]

As anyone here should be well aware of...suspecting someone of something does not then make that person A Suspect. Evidence does. There is nothing within any Lechmere thread that Ive seen that constitutes evidence suggesting any guilt of any kind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that Abby. Let's see if I can **** that up.

Herlock

[GUT]

That's all part of the point. One I've been making for years now. If we step through what I have referred to in the past as Cross/Lechmere's "decision points", we see him consistently submitting himself - completely needlessly - to scrutiny and, were he Nichols' killer, toward danger, arrest, detention, death.

You make a good point. Lechmere stated that he heard Paul some 40 yards off. I've made the point many times. If this is true, RUNNING is hardly necessary. He needed only to walk into the darkness, into the maze of the East End to avoid detection.

But, let's try and stay away from what Cross/Lechmere himself tells us. After all, some are trying to sell him as a "serialist". So, let's play along and depend on what we've gotten from sources other than the man himself.

He's in almost total darkness, in Buck's Row. We know this because Paul inspected the body but noticed no injuries. No blood. Both of which became apparent moments later in the light of Neil's lantern. Paul tells us he saw "a man". And he, Paul, tried to walk around that man. But, the man, Lechmere, didn't allow him to simply walk on. He walked toward him. Paul still didn't wish to acknowledge the man. After all, this was a dangerous spot, upon which many had been knocked down. Paul continued on until the man - undeterred by Paul's attempt to avoid him - TOUCHES his shoulder and asks him to "come see this woman". Now, wouldn't Paul's desire to avoid Cross/Lechmere, were he the killer of Nichols', have been a good thing, what he WANTED? So, we have a few decisions to this point. Let's review them with - to quote the inimitable Christer - with "an eye on Lechmere being guilty", shall we?

1. After killing and disemboweling Nichols, Cross/Lechmere walks just a few feet from the body and waits for a man walking toward him down Buck's Row. He doesn't walk away from Paul into darkness. Alas, he has an advantage in that he KNOWS which way Paul is headed. Paul has no idea which way Cross/Lechmere is headed. Rather than simply walk toward Paul, thus passing him before Paul reached Nichols body, he remained on the spot. An odd decision for a killer not wishing to be caught.

2. After killing and disemboweling Nichols and waiting in place for Paul to reach him, Cross/Lechmere refuses to allow Paul to pass him by. Paul pays no notice of the body. He tries to avoid contact with Cross/Lechmere, who he could never describe as it is pitch black in Buck's Row. Yet, Cross/Lechmere approaches Paul, who STILL ties to avoid him. Undeterred, Cross/Lechmere wants to be certain he gets this man's attention and he TOUCHES HIS SHOULDER and asks him to "come see this woman". Had he just killed Nichols' how do we explain this behavior? Obviously, the truth is that he was a man who came across a woman on the pavement at 3:45am and his behavior reinforces that. But, here we are assuming he killed Nichols. So, how do we make sense of it? We can't. NO EXPLANATION yet given makes sense. To ascribe this behavior to a killer with a grand plan to avoid capture and suspicion makes no sense, however badly we wish it did.

3. Now our killer goes to the body with Paul. He's killed her, disemboweled her, practically chased down and BEGGED a passerby to come view his handy work, TOUCHING the man's shoulder with the very hand with which he's just butchered a prostitute WITHOUT fear of transferring blood to the man's clothing, and NOW he goes with the man to check this woman out. Our killer is certain - for some unknown reason - that Paul isn't a smoker carrying a match with which to light the scene. He knew that as soon as he heard his footsteps and begged him to come view his victim. So, the cunning plan proceeds perfectly and it's too dark for Paul to notice blood or injury. Paul tells Saucy Jack that he thinks she's breathing, he detects a "slight movement"! PERFECT! Our killer can then say, "I knew it! Another drunk passed out! Let's be on our way!" But...he doesn't say that. He says that he disagrees and that he think's she dead. Paul the pasty then wishes to MOVE the body. Having just gutted this poor woman, in the dark, Chuck the Ripper eschews this opportunity to contact the body and explain any blood that may be on his clothing. He decides....no. He refuses to touch the body. At all. The true believers will tell you it's because moving the body would have revealed the injuries. Hmmmm. He's now concerned about the injuries being revealed? He forced this poor fellow to come see the body. He wasn't concerned that he had a match which would easily have revealed the injuries. But now he's worried the man may notice. Even though he begged him to come see. Wouldn't let him walk on. Touched his shoulder. "Come see this woman." Now he's worried the man might see the injuries that - were he her killer - HE KNEW WERE THERE?

4. So, he's done for Nichols, dissected her, run Paul down and forced him to view his victims body, he's refused an opportunity to explain his victims blood on his person by NOT assisting Paul in moving the body....and now he decides to go with Paul......IN SEARCH OF A POLICMAN. Remember, he knew which way Paul was headed. Paul did not know which was HE was headed. He could have VERY EASILY said, "I'm due at work that way (the other direction down Buck's Row). I'll look for a cop my way, you look your way, and we'll both send help should we find it." No. He passed that opportunity up in favor of ACTUALLY heading off with Paul looking for a cop. He never tries to leave Paul and UREAKA! they find a PC, Mizen, in Baker's Row. Again, he so CERTAIN that there is no blood on his person that can be revealed by Mizen's lantern that he's perfectly comfortable with this part of the plan. He knows Mizen won't check him out. Or search for the murder weapon hidden in his coat. Or ask the men to lead him BACK to the body. This is going PERFECTLY for our killer so for! Now, the men tell Mizen that there's a woman, dead or drunk, lying in Buck's Row. But, our killer tells Mizen that, for his part, he think's she's DEAD! Good strategy. I mean, he'd now, right! He killed her. Mizen claims that Cross/Lechmere told him he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. Paul doesn't corroborate Mizen. Cross/Lechemere doesn't corroborate Mizen. Alas, we're asked to believe Mizen. Only Mizen. Okay. Let's believe Mizen. So, how did our killer relate this information to Mizen without Paul contradicting him? It's so OBVIOUS! It's the Mizen Scam! He did it out of poor, dumb, gullible Paul's earshot! That's the theory. So, follow this: He kills Nichols, guts her, hears a guy coming, steps a few feet from her rather than walking away, forces the guy to examine the woman with him, refuses an opportunity to move the body and explain any blood, decides to accompany the man on a quest to find a PC, they FIND a PC, he TELLS the PC that he - the killer - thinks the woman is DEAD, and THEN he pulls the PC aside to tell him a BS story, one his companion KNOWS is not true, without fear that Paul would find his heading off for a secret conversation with the PC suspicious, that he'd wonder what they talked about, that he would refuse to stand idly while he chatted up Mizen out of earshot. Oh, and remember. Paul says nothing, either in Lloyd's or at the inquest, about a secret conversation.

5. Speaking of Lloyd's and inquest. Let's stick with the fantasy that Cross/Lechmere is our man. He killed Nichols. But, wait. He SHOWS UP at the inquest 48 hours after the murder? BUT WHY? Because of the bombshell that was Paul's statement in Lloyd's you see. That bombshell has Paul crediting himself with ALL of the action. The killer is merely "a man". That's the extent of his description. A man. Paul saw a man by the body. And from there Paul is the prime actor. He inspects the body. He goes in search of Mizen. HE tell us that Mizen acted improperly and that it was a great shame as he'd just been told the WOMAN WAS DEAD! Oh, and another thing....Mizen didn't ask either man his name, where he lived, worked, or anything at all. He merely said, "Alright"....and walked on. Yet...here is the killer. At the inquest. Ready to testify. Just as he approached Paul. Just as he went to find Mizen. Now he's at the inquest. Evil genius or innocent man? Clearly we know the answer. It's obvious to anyone with common sense and no agenda.

Great summary

And at that inquest he gives them his place of work and address.

AND a name that he MAY have been using, or at least was associated with him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's all part of the point. One I've been making for years now. If we step through what I have referred to in the past as Cross/Lechmere's "decision points", we see him consistently submitting himself - completely needlessly - to scrutiny and, were he Nichols' killer, toward danger, arrest, detention, death.

You make a good point. Lechmere stated that he heard Paul some 40 yards off. I've made the point many times. If this is true, RUNNING is hardly necessary. He needed only to walk into the darkness, into the maze of the East End to avoid detection.

But, let's try and stay away from what Cross/Lechmere himself tells us. After all, some are trying to sell him as a "serialist". So, let's play along and depend on what we've gotten from sources other than the man himself.

He's in almost total darkness, in Buck's Row. We know this because Paul inspected the body but noticed no injuries. No blood. Both of which became apparent moments later in the light of Neil's lantern. Paul tells us he saw "a man". And he, Paul, tried to walk around that man. But, the man, Lechmere, didn't allow him to simply walk on. He walked toward him. Paul still didn't wish to acknowledge the man. After all, this was a dangerous spot, upon which many had been knocked down. Paul continued on until the man - undeterred by Paul's attempt to avoid him - TOUCHES his shoulder and asks him to "come see this woman". Now, wouldn't Paul's desire to avoid Cross/Lechmere, were he the killer of Nichols', have been a good thing, what he WANTED? So, we have a few decisions to this point. Let's review them with - to quote the inimitable Christer - with "an eye on Lechmere being guilty", shall we?

1. After killing and disemboweling Nichols, Cross/Lechmere walks just a few feet from the body and waits for a man walking toward him down Buck's Row. He doesn't walk away from Paul into darkness. Alas, he has an advantage in that he KNOWS which way Paul is headed. Paul has no idea which way Cross/Lechmere is headed. Rather than simply walk toward Paul, thus passing him before Paul reached Nichols body, he remained on the spot. An odd decision for a killer not wishing to be caught.

2. After killing and disemboweling Nichols and waiting in place for Paul to reach him, Cross/Lechmere refuses to allow Paul to pass him by. Paul pays no notice of the body. He tries to avoid contact with Cross/Lechmere, who he could never describe as it is pitch black in Buck's Row. Yet, Cross/Lechmere approaches Paul, who STILL ties to avoid him. Undeterred, Cross/Lechmere wants to be certain he gets this man's attention and he TOUCHES HIS SHOULDER and asks him to "come see this woman". Had he just killed Nichols' how do we explain this behavior? Obviously, the truth is that he was a man who came across a woman on the pavement at 3:45am and his behavior reinforces that. But, here we are assuming he killed Nichols. So, how do we make sense of it? We can't. NO EXPLANATION yet given makes sense. To ascribe this behavior to a killer with a grand plan to avoid capture and suspicion makes no sense, however badly we wish it did.

3. Now our killer goes to the body with Paul. He's killed her, disemboweled her, practically chased down and BEGGED a passerby to come view his handy work, TOUCHING the man's shoulder with the very hand with which he's just butchered a prostitute WITHOUT fear of transferring blood to the man's clothing, and NOW he goes with the man to check this woman out. Our killer is certain - for some unknown reason - that Paul isn't a smoker carrying a match with which to light the scene. He knew that as soon as he heard his footsteps and begged him to come view his victim. So, the cunning plan proceeds perfectly and it's too dark for Paul to notice blood or injury. Paul tells Saucy Jack that he thinks she's breathing, he detects a "slight movement"! PERFECT! Our killer can then say, "I knew it! Another drunk passed out! Let's be on our way!" But...he doesn't say that. He says that he disagrees and that he think's she dead. Paul the pasty then wishes to MOVE the body. Having just gutted this poor woman, in the dark, Chuck the Ripper eschews this opportunity to contact the body and explain any blood that may be on his clothing. He decides....no. He refuses to touch the body. At all. The true believers will tell you it's because moving the body would have revealed the injuries. Hmmmm. He's now concerned about the injuries being revealed? He forced this poor fellow to come see the body. He wasn't concerned that he had a match which would easily have revealed the injuries. But now he's worried the man may notice. Even though he begged him to come see. Wouldn't let him walk on. Touched his shoulder. "Come see this woman." Now he's worried the man might see the injuries that - were he her killer - HE KNEW WERE THERE?

4. So, he's done for Nichols, dissected her, run Paul down and forced him to view his victims body, he's refused an opportunity to explain his victims blood on his person by NOT assisting Paul in moving the body....and now he decides to go with Paul......IN SEARCH OF A POLICMAN. Remember, he knew which way Paul was headed. Paul did not know which was HE was headed. He could have VERY EASILY said, "I'm due at work that way (the other direction down Buck's Row). I'll look for a cop my way, you look your way, and we'll both send help should we find it." No. He passed that opportunity up in favor of ACTUALLY heading off with Paul looking for a cop. He never tries to leave Paul and UREAKA! they find a PC, Mizen, in Baker's Row. Again, he so CERTAIN that there is no blood on his person that can be revealed by Mizen's lantern that he's perfectly comfortable with this part of the plan. He knows Mizen won't check him out. Or search for the murder weapon hidden in his coat. Or ask the men to lead him BACK to the body. This is going PERFECTLY for our killer so for! Now, the men tell Mizen that there's a woman, dead or drunk, lying in Buck's Row. But, our killer tells Mizen that, for his part, he think's she's DEAD! Good strategy. I mean, he'd now, right! He killed her. Mizen claims that Cross/Lechmere told him he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. Paul doesn't corroborate Mizen. Cross/Lechemere doesn't corroborate Mizen. Alas, we're asked to believe Mizen. Only Mizen. Okay. Let's believe Mizen. So, how did our killer relate this information to Mizen without Paul contradicting him? It's so OBVIOUS! It's the Mizen Scam! He did it out of poor, dumb, gullible Paul's earshot! That's the theory. So, follow this: He kills Nichols, guts her, hears a guy coming, steps a few feet from her rather than walking away, forces the guy to examine the woman with him, refuses an opportunity to move the body and explain any blood, decides to accompany the man on a quest to find a PC, they FIND a PC, he TELLS the PC that he - the killer - thinks the woman is DEAD, and THEN he pulls the PC aside to tell him a BS story, one his companion KNOWS is not true, without fear that Paul would find his heading off for a secret conversation with the PC suspicious, that he'd wonder what they talked about, that he would refuse to stand idly while he chatted up Mizen out of earshot. Oh, and remember. Paul says nothing, either in Lloyd's or at the inquest, about a secret conversation.

5. Speaking of Lloyd's and inquest. Let's stick with the fantasy that Cross/Lechmere is our man. He killed Nichols. But, wait. He SHOWS UP at the inquest 48 hours after the murder? BUT WHY? Because of the bombshell that was Paul's statement in Lloyd's you see. That bombshell has Paul crediting himself with ALL of the action. The killer is merely "a man". That's the extent of his description. A man. Paul saw a man by the body. And from there Paul is the prime actor. He inspects the body. He goes in search of Mizen. HE tell us that Mizen acted improperly and that it was a great shame as he'd just been told the WOMAN WAS DEAD! Oh, and another thing....Mizen didn't ask either man his name, where he lived, worked, or anything at all. He merely said, "Alright"....and walked on. Yet...here is the killer. At the inquest. Ready to testify. Just as he approached Paul. Just as he went to find Mizen. Now he's at the inquest. Evil genius or innocent man? Clearly we know the answer. It's obvious to anyone with common sense and no agenda.

Patrick, I take my deerstalker off to you

No point in me responding point for point because I agree with them all.

Regards

Herlock