Robert Paul

[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 don´t have the solution, and so we can´t 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, that´s 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?

[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.

[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 "He´s 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? Isn´t 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.

[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?

[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]

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. Let´s put your knowledge to the test, instead of allowing you to throw uninformed manure. How´s that?

[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 "He´s wrong!". Strictly speaking, it´s not a bad thing, since it shows you for what you are and for the level of knowledge you represent. But overall, it´s 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? Isn´t it a rather measly life, to travel round the net like a witless parrot?

[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]

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]

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]

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 don´t, 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, he´s 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 won´t help to conjure up something as if it was an established truth. That, I´m 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.

[Fisherman]

Hair Bear:

Can you supply me with a link that gives all details, please? Thanks.

No, I can´t, because all details are not on sale as of now. However, you are welcome to consider this:
-Both killers worked the London area.
-Both killers overlapped, timewise.
-Both killers were believed to have bled their victims out by way of cutting their necks.
-Both killers were eviscerators.
-Both killers cut victims open from sternum to pubes (Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly, The Rainham torso, The Pinchins Street torso and the Horsleydown torso, Elizabeth Jackson)
-Both killers took away organs from their victims, both sexually oriented and non-sexually oriented.
-Both killers cut out parts of the colon from victims (Eddowes, the Rainham torso and Elizabeth Jackson)
-Both killers cut away the abdominal wall, the subcutaneous tissue included, from victims (Chapman, Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson)
-Both killers were inititally believed to have surgical expertise, on account of their highly skilled use of the knife. Although what both killers did with their knives, no surgeon would ever do.
-Both killers took rings from their victims.
-Both killers preyed on prostitutes, as far as we can tell. The Ripper victims all seems to have been prostitutes, and the only named torso victim, Liz Jackson, was also a prostitute.

As I say, this is not all. There is another matter to add too, but I am keeping it under wraps for now.

When two independent witnesses say they heard “Oh, murder” at around 4am, I think that that gives a good indication.

Many more witnesses, dwellers in Bucks Row, said that there was a cry of "Murder". But most of them were dismissed, since they gave varying times. I don´t ascribe very much value to this detail. Nor do I rule it out. The time as such is not consistent with either of the TOD:s suggested by Bond and Phillips, respectively.

Do you believe that Hutchinson saw Kelly with the Ripper?

No. I believe that George Hutchinson mistook the day, and that he was there on the night before the murder. Walter Dew says that he cannot see any other explanation than a mistaken time. And Dew also says that he would not call Hutchinsons honesty into question, so we are in all probability looking at an honest mistake. Consequentially, the man Lewis saw (or claimed to have seen) could not have been Hutchinson. And Hutchinson said he himself saw only two people during his vigil, neither of whom was Lewis - who must have walked right past Hutchinson. If he was there, of course. Hutchonson also claimed to have gone to the corner of the court, and to have left from the corner of the court - and Lewis has her man on the other side of the street.


You tell us that Cross lied about saying a policeman was present on the strength of Mizen’s testimony. If you are to believe Mizen here, then you must also believe him when he says Paul and Cross spoke to him at 3:45 - you can’t pick and choose when to believe someone’s testimony.

If you can prove that Mizen had a timepiece and that timepiece was correct, I will oblige. Otherwise, we can only say that Mizen thought it was around 3.45. We know that Neil said he found the body at 3.45, so we can see that somebody must be out on some time.

You could argue that Mizen has his time wrong (although by the same token, you can argue that he recalled incorrectly that a policeman needed him).

You can argue anything you want. It all boils down to credibilitites and likelihoods in the end.

However, we know that PC Thain testified to being called for help at 3:45 by Neil. When coupling their evidence, Paul’s testimony, that he entered Buck’s Row at 3:45, is plain wrong.

As I said, either Mizen or Neil is wrong, so we know we are dealing with mistaken times here. Robert Paul was the only one to say that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he went into Bucks Row (Lloyds Weekly), and that is consistent with how he said at the inquest that he left home just before 3.45.

So when we couple that with his telling us he is behind time, I smell a rat (whether that means he is the Ripper or simply has his times wrong is a different matter).

I don´t smell a rat at all. I smell a carman who had reason to be oriented about the time since he was late, and I smell consistent testimony on his behalf. But we all have differing smelling sense...

After all, it is Paul, not Cross, who first says that he is behind time and didn’t want to wait around, preferring to find a cop en route.

And it is Paul, not Lechmere, who suggests that they should look for a PC. And it is Paul, not lechmere, who suggests that they should prop Nichols up.

As such, we can therefore conclude that if anyone didn’t want to be taken back to the scene of the crime it is Paul!

No, we can´t. Suggesting that they should find themselves a PC is inviting that exact risk. And it was Lechmere, not Paul, who defused the risk.

Knowing more about Paul would help, hence my asking if anyone had more information on him. If you know of any, no matter how trivial, please let me have the link, thanks.

We know that he had no reason to walk further West of Corbetts court en route to work. And neverheless, this is where the murders occur. We don´t know that he had any ties at all to St Georges, where Stride died. And guess where Lechmere´s mother and daughter lived at that time? 1 Mary Ann Street ... We cannot tie Paul to the Mitre Street area, whereas we know that Lechmere would have passed close by it on his old route from James Street to the Broad Street depot for many years.
Believe me, factually, Robert Paul is nowhere near Lechmere when it comes to these matters.

Other thoughts...
I know that Cross doesn’t fit too well the description given by the one witness I believe got the Ripper bang on, PC Smith. He says the man was twenty eight (oddly, closer to Paul’s age than Cross).

It you have decided that this must have been the Ripper, I can only say that I have not.

If you are to believe that Cross was the killer, then I assume you do not believe the Ripper wrote the Dear Boss letter, since the respective author's handwriting is (completely) different.

People with multiple personalitites can have totally different handwriting styles, making the connection undetectable to any graphologist, so I would not bank on such a thing. However, I do not think that the Ripper wrote any of the letters, although I keen an open mind on a few of them. The Dear Boss letter is not one of them.

[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! 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.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for your input, Harry (and everyone else who has kindly responded to this thread). Whilst like yourself I do believe Cross innocent, I approach the Ripper and indeed all mysteries with an attitude of " I suspect no one and everyone", so feel Cross has to be eyed with suspicion. He and anyone else who was remotely close to the killings (Paul, Mizen etc) needs to be fully investigated – irrespective of whether they appear to be innocent or guilty, or whether that investigation goes on to prove guilt or innocence. I'm pretty sure you will agree with me when I say we need to be open minded.



If you are reading this, Edward, thank you for your excellent input.



Can you supply me with a link that gives all details, please? Thanks.



When two independent witnesses say they heard “Oh, murder” at around 4am, I think that that gives a good indication. Do you believe that Hutchinson saw Kelly with the Ripper?



You tell us that Cross lied about saying a policeman was present on the strength of Mizen’s testimony. If you are to believe Mizen here, then you must also believe him when he says Paul and Cross spoke to him at 3:45 - you can’t pick and choose when to believe someone’s testimony. You could argue that Mizen has his time wrong (although by the same token, you can argue that he recalled incorrectly that a policeman needed him). However, we know that PC Thain testified to being called for help at 3:45 by Neil. When coupling their evidence, Paul’s testimony, that he entered Buck’s Row at 3:45, is plain wrong. So when we couple that with his telling us he is behind time, I smell a rat (whether that means he is the Ripper or simply has his times wrong is a different matter). After all, it is Paul, not Cross, who first says that he is behind time and didn’t want to wait around, preferring to find a cop en route. As such, we can therefore conclude that if anyone didn’t want to be taken back to the scene of the crime it is Paul!

Knowing more about Paul would help, hence my asking if anyone had more information on him. If you know of any, no matter how trivial, please let me have the link, thanks.

Other thoughts...
I know that Cross doesn’t fit too well the description given by the one witness I believe got the Ripper bang on, PC Smith. He says the man was twenty eight (oddly, closer to Paul’s age than Cross).

If you are to believe that Cross was the killer, then I assume you do not believe the Ripper wrote the Dear Boss letter, since the respective author's handwriting is (completely) different.

Hi Hair Bear
why would Paul as the killer of Nichols come out/circle back around and walk by the scene, especially if there is another man, lech, there? Hes already gotten away and or not been noticed.

also, why do you think PC Long was the one witness who got the ripper bang on? do you think hes the only witness that saw the ripper? all the other witnesses did not?

[Harry D]

Thanks for your input, Harry (and everyone else who has kindly responded to this thread). Whilst like yourself I do believe Cross innocent, I approach the Ripper and indeed all mysteries with an attitude of " I suspect no one and everyone", so feel Cross has to be eyed with suspicion. He and anyone else who was remotely close to the killings (Paul, Mizen etc) needs to be fully investigated – irrespective of whether they appear to be innocent or guilty, or whether that investigation goes on to prove guilt or innocence. I'm pretty sure you will agree with me when I say we need to be open minded.

To be honest, I did approach Lechmere with an open mind. At first I found him to be an interesting prospect but upon scratching the surface I realised that a lot of the so-called facts about him, e.g. his "fake" name and his work route overlapping with the murder sites, are half-truths used to exaggerate his worth, which is par for the course in this field. I was also disappointed to learn that Lechmere didn't die until 1920 at age 71 and lived a relatively normal life without incident. His only connection to the Ripper case is that on 31th August 1888 he happened to cross paths with a murder victim. It also wasn't helped by the smug, supercilious and belligerent way a certain proponent of the Lechmere camp pushes his agenda on here.