Robert Paul

[Fisherman]

Hair Bear: Harry D: I agree about Cross' name. You would hardly supply your first and middle name, and your place of work and actual address, if you are hoping to avoid detection/further investigation!

Another case where this exact thing happened was quoted on either this or the other site a few months ago. You need to imagine that Lechmere would have realized that feeding the police false information was coupled with great danger if he was checked out. The name Cross, though, he could give an explanation for.
But since there are a hundred plus records giving the carman as "Lechmere" whenever in contact with the authoritites, and only one where he used "Cross", I think that calls for an explanation. Others donīt, they think that is an everyday and normal behaviour.


I also agree that Cross' unblemished record doesn't sound like what I would expect of the Ripper.

There are dozens of serial killers who had unblemished records when caught. Who would have thought that? People like Bundy, Ridgway, Armstrong had their neighbours and friends in total disbelief when it was revealed who they were. "Not him, heīs such a good guy!" I fear that naivety is not much of a help when trying to look for a serial killer. They are ever so often grey and unremarkable, and many of them are regarded as pillars of society. As for what Harry says, that Lechmere "lived a relatively normal life without incident", I think you may realize that this is nothing but fiction. He may have been the terror of the neighbourhood and he may have been Santa Claus in a carmans disguise. The point is we cannot possibly know, and it wonīt help to conjure up something as if it was an established truth. That, Iīm afraid, is what Harry does on a reoccurring basis.

And as one character in 12 Angry Men says "I just don't think he would go back for the knife", the very first thing that made me feel Cross was innocent was the fact that he said he thought he was looking at a tarpaulin. I know it's only a gut feeling, but you just wouldn't come up with that unless that is what happened.

Why? He also said that he could hear Paul the second he stepped out into the street. Can you make that up? He said that he left home at 3.30. Can you make that up? He said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen. Can you make that up? He said that he told Mizen that the woman was probably dead. Can you make that up?
What, specifically, is it that disenables a carman who wants to create a picture of himself as innocent to make up a story of a tarpaulin? I am genuinely curious about that.

[Harry D]

Harry D: I agree about Cross' name. You would hardly supply your first and middle name, and your place of work and actual address, if you are hoping to avoid detection/further investigation! That the name Cross was given to 'Lechmere' as a child, one can only imagine that that was the name he preferred to go by (I know at least two people who have from being a child always used their middle name as their first). I also agree that Cross' unblemished record doesn't sound like what I would expect of the Ripper. And as one character in 12 Angry Men says "I just don't think he would go back for the knife", the very first thing that made me feel Cross was innocent was the fact that he said he thought he was looking at a tarpaulin. I know it's only a gut feeling, but you just wouldn't come up with that unless that is what happened.

Exactly, you are on the right track. Unfortunately, the uninformed will read "he gave a false name to the police" and assume that he had something to hide, when in actuality he gave his stepfather's surname, place of work, and came forward to the inquest. These aren't the actions of a man trying to avoid suspicion. There could be any number of reasons why he presented himself as 'Charles Cross' but few of them support the notion that he was the killer.

Also, be forewarned that people will cite family-man killers such as Dennis Rader when arguing Lechmere's case. This has always been something of a false comparison, as Rader spread his murders over a 17 year period. These long periods of downtime speak to Rader's self-control and ability to maintain the semblance of a normal life, whilst a more impulsive killer would likely have been caught earlier on. In contrast, the Whitechapel murders were carried out with alarming frequency and extreme risk. This wasn't a killer who broke into people's homes or abducted his victims, situations that would offer more control for the killer. With one notable exception, this was somebody murdering and butchering women in the street, in tenement buildings, or next to busy social clubs. If this was the work of one killer, he was a man on a mission.

[Fisherman]

Exactly, you are on the right track. Unfortunately, the uninformed will read "he gave a false name to the police" and assume that he had something to hide, when in actuality he gave his stepfather's surname, place of work, and came forward to the inquest. These aren't the actions of a man trying to avoid suspicion. There could be any number of reasons why he presented himself as 'Charles Cross' but few of them support the notion that he was the killer.

Also, be forewarned that people will cite family-man killers such as Dennis Rader when arguing Lechmere's case. This has always been something of a false comparison, as Rader spread his murders over a 17 year period. These long periods of downtime speak to Rader's self-control and ability to maintain the semblance of a normal life, whilst a more impulsive killer would likely have been caught earlier on. In contrast, the Whitechapel murders were carried out with alarming frequency and extreme risk. This wasn't a killer who broke into people's homes or abducted his victims, situations that would offer more control for the killer. With one notable exception, this was somebody murdering and butchering women in the street, in tenement buildings, or next to busy social clubs. If this was the work of one killer, he was a man on a mission.

It takes one sentence to disclose yor agenda: "You are on the right track".

As if you alone, of all people, knew...

[Harry D]

It takes one sentence to disclose yor agenda: "You are on the right track".

As if you alone, of all people, knew...

Yes, Fisherman, I advocate that everyone approaches Lechmere with a critical mindset, just like any other suspect put forward. I can see why you might have a problem with that in this case.

[Fisherman]

Yes, Fisherman, I advocate that everyone approaches Lechmere with a critical mindset, just like any other suspect put forward. I can see why you might have a problem with that in this case.

When you say that you know that Hair Bear "is on the right track", that has nothing to do with a critical mindset. The reason - once again - being that you have no idea which is the right track. It is a thing that none of us can prove.

All you manage to prove is that you have decided to follow me around on the net and shout "Heīs wrong!". Strictly speaking, itīs not a bad thing, since it shows you for what you are and for the level of knowledge you represent. But overall, itīs of course trolling and nothing else, incidentally an area where you excel.

If the Lechmere theory is so lousy, why not let people decide that for themselves? Isnīt it a rather measly life, to travel round the net like a witless parrot?

[Fisherman]

By the way, Harry, since you predispose that I am always wrong, how about giving me your informed view on the shared identity of the two killers. Letīs put your knowledge to the test, instead of allowing you to throw uninformed manure. Howīs that?

[Abby Normal]

Harry D: I agree about Cross' name. You would hardly supply your first and middle name, and your place of work and actual address, if you are hoping to avoid detection/further investigation! That the name Cross was given to 'Lechmere' as a child, one can only imagine that that was the name he preferred to go by (I know at least two people who have from being a child always used their middle name as their first). I also agree that Cross' unblemished record doesn't sound like what I would expect of the Ripper. And as one character in 12 Angry Men says "I just don't think he would go back for the knife", the very first thing that made me feel Cross was innocent was the fact that he said he thought he was looking at a tarpaulin. I know it's only a gut feeling, but you just wouldn't come up with that unless that is what happened.

Abby Normal (RIP Gene Wilder!): PC Long's description I value most because he is trained to do exactly that. The fact that other descriptions echo his, only makes me assume the Ripper was younger than Cross - I do concede that he may well be 38ish. Being a decade out is possible, if not very probable. As for why Paul would double back, who knows, maybe the package he kept his knife in was left thirty yards back up the road (another 'not very probable but certainly possible'). As I said, I don't think Paul is the killer, but my thinking he isn't doesn't necessarily make me right.

HI HB
RIP Gene Wilder indeed!

I too think PC Long probably saw the ripper. He describes a man with a peaked cap the night of the double event as does other witnesses: Schwartz, marshall, lawende and the anon church street witness.
these witnesses and their veracity also made an impression on Abberline-see my sig below.

[Fisherman]

HI HB
RIP Gene Wilder indeed!

I too think PC Long probably saw the ripper. He describes a man with a peaked cap the night of the double event as does other witnesses: Schwartz, marshall, lawende and the anon church street witness.
these witnesses and their veracity also made an impression on Abberline-see my sig below.

PC Long? Are you talking about William Smith? And did he not speak of a deerstalker hat?

[Harry D]

When you say that you know that Hair Bear "is on the right track", that has nothing to do with a critical mindset. The reason - once again - being that you have no idea which is the right track. It is a thing that none of us can prove.

Of course it does. Hair Bear is asking all the right questions when investigating Lechmere instead of swallowing the half-truths hook, line and sinker.

All you manage to prove is that you have decided to follow me around on the net and shout "Heīs wrong!"

Followed you, around? Look back through the numerous Lechmere threads and they will testify that you are the one who cannot leave me alone.

If the Lechmere theory is so lousy, why not let people decide that for themselves? Isnīt it a rather measly life, to travel round the net like a witless parrot?

I could bounce that question straight back at you. Why do you feel the need to wade in and proselytize when anyone shows the slightest scepticism towards Lechmere? If you felt that confident about him as the Ripper, you would let your work speak for itself.

[Abby Normal]

PC Long? Are you talking about William Smith? And did he not speak of a deerstalker hat?

my bad yes. PC long. and yes he did speak of a dear stalker hat. it a hat with a peak-well two of course I have to admit. but close enough IMHO.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Of course it does. Hair Bear is asking all the right questions when investigating Lechmere instead of swallowing the half-truths hook, line and sinker.

Once again, you cannot tell what is true or not. Let alone what is half-true. We donīt have the solution, and so we canīt tell.

Followed you, around? Look back through the numerous Lechmere threads and they will testify that you are the one who cannot leave me alone.

I have a bad habit of answering your abuse and chronical unsubstantiated attacks, but that does not change the order of things. Just like this time over, you are reguarly the one butting in and misinforming. Much like John Wheat. Quite a couple, you two! I can see the attraction.


I could bounce that question straight back at you. Why do you feel the need to wade in and proselytize when anyone shows the slightest scepticism towards Lechmere? If you felt that confident about him as the Ripper, you would let your work speak for itself.

Two things may have accidentally slipped your attention here, Harry:

1. I am being asked questions by Hair Bear. Of course, I could answer them by telling him to go away, but I find it more useful to give the factual answers instead.
2. The Lechmere theory is my theory. It is not just mine, but I am the one out here representing it. Of course, many people with theories will jump at the opportunity not to have them aired (after all, thatīs why theories are formed), but I belong to the timy fraction of people who think differently.

The Lechmere theory is not YOUR theory, however, so maybe we can put the two points I made together and tell you to go away? No?

[Fisherman]

my bad yes. PC long. and yes he did speak of a dear stalker hat. it a hat with a peak-well two of course I have to admit. but close enough IMHO.

Why would he, of all the "suspects", be the killer? Do you think he is the same man that was mentioned by Lawende, Marshall and Schwartz; BS man?

[Abby Normal]

Why would he, of all the "suspects", be the killer? Do you think he is the same man that was mentioned by Lawende, Marshall and Schwartz; BS man?

yes I do

[Fisherman]

yes I do

Okay. Myself, I tend to see the man from the earlier pub visit, Schwartzīs man and Marshalls man as possibly the same man, but I am in now way certain. As I remember it, Smiths man deviated by wearing a deerstalker, by carrying a parcel, by being taller and by being older than Schwartzīs man. And of course, by being differently dressed than Lawendes sailor. So to me, itīs all very shaky and inconclusive.
But you are of course entitled to your hunch - we all have them and cherish them...!

[Hair Bear]

PC Long? Are you talking about William Smith? And did he not speak of a deerstalker hat?

Argh, thanks. Yeah, Smith.