Robert Paul

[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.

[Hair Bear]

There is no reason to suspect Lechmere of one series of murders, let alone two.

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.

the real authority on Lechmere is Edward Stow

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

The Ripper and the Thames torso killer are one and the same man.

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

Nobody knows when Kelly was killed

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?

(Why did Paul lie about entering Buck's Row at 4:45am, and why did he lie about being late?) He did neither, as far as I´m concerned. And we cannot be sure that he started at 4 o´clock sharp that day - maybe he had been told to arrive ten minutes earlier for some reason, we have no idea.

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.

[Harry D]

And yes, lech is a good fit for the ripper/torso man.

Absurd.

There is no reason to suspect Lechmere of one series of murders, let alone two.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Hair bear

first welcome.

second just to add about the point fish made about the ripper and torso man being the same.

As recently as a couple of years ago, you would have been harangued off the boards if you even brought up the mere possibility.

thankfully, that seems to be changing and I for one now lean toward them being the same man.

It is basically the same sig, victomology, time and place and the way specifically that several victims in both series had there abdomans cut open and the flaps of skin removed is uncanny.

Fish and researcher extraordinaire Deb Arif are really the experts on this and can highlight many many more similarities of the two.

I have been urging both to write books-fish on Lech as the suspect and also Debra on the torso killings and/or the similarities between the two. I look forward to buying both if they ever do.


And yes, lech is a good fit for the ripper/torso man. as his age (among other things) as fish points out correctly meshes quite nicely.

my favored suspect for ripper and or ripper/torso man is Aussie George Hutch-at least for some of the torso killings, but that's also controversial idea and off topic here so perhaps for another thread.

again welcome

[Harry D]

Keep up the scepticism, Hair Bear. Nice to see you haven't fallen afoul of the half-truths and sophistry that prop-up the case for Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Hair Bear: In that case, I should perhaps take this opportunity to congratulate you on your research and your most interesting documentary. Although I don't believe Cross is the Ripper, I concede that as an obvious suspect (arguably the prime one) he may well be, and therefore should be investigated to the fullest.

Thank you! I must tell you that the research is only partly mine - the real authority on Lechmere is Edward Stow, with whom I have cooperated about the Lechmere material. He does not post out here nowadays, however.


A fair assumption, although not a conclusive one, and I would say that even if it was Cross who refused to lift her, that doesn't point to his guilt - I'm pretty sure that I would also refuse to move her! As to why Paul offered to move her: if we are going to use speculation, then we could argue that he either banked on Cross' refusal or else didn't care, since ultimately their testimonies would point to Cross having been there first.

Lechmere had no problems touching her, though, feeling for warmth. And he instigated the examination, so I find it odd that he did not want to follow it up properly. To help the woman to sit up would have been the expected thing to do. All in all, Lechmere is always the one behaving oddly.
For some reason. Or another.

Yes, he could, but then again had Cross been the Ripper he could himself have chosen a couple of different options to the one he did. The choices people make aren't necessarily always the most logical, especially when under pressure.

True - so we must leave that one open. But Lechmere is the one swopping names, and he is the one who has the killings occur on his rote to work, plus he is the one who seemingly lied to Mizen about an extre PC. Paul does not have that rap sheet.


Sorry, I'm either missing a joke or a point here. Either way, it makes no sense to investigate only Cross, when we know that Paul, Neal, Mizen and Thain, among others, were in the area and therefore any one of them could, even as an outside chance, be the Ripper. As such, surely you see the sense in investigating fully each individual? You never know, after all.

This is it: The Ripper and the Thames torso killer are one and the same man. The person who killed Mary Kelly in November of 1888, was almost certainly the same man who killed the 1873 torso victim at Battersea.
Paul was 16 then. Kosminsi was 8, Chapman was 8...
Lechmere was 24.

It´s a point, it is not a joke.

Now that I have you here, some other points:

I might have this wrong but in the documentary I think you said that Cross didn't work Saturdays. If he starts work at 4am why would he be killing Kelly at 4am?

Nobody knows when Kelly was killed, but she was killed on a working day. A few people had the day off since it was Lordmayor´s day, but most peiple had to work.

Much was also made of the fact that Paul didn't see any blood and therefore the killing must have only just taken place, bearing in mind only a few minutes later Neal saw blood - but you failed to mention that Neal only saw the blood by use of his light, which Paul didn't have.

The idea was Andy Griffiths´. I think it is a fair one; even if it was dark, the carmen saw the body from the other side of the street, they saw the bonnet etcetera - bending down over the neck, checking for breath, it would be reasonable to see the pool of blood too - if it was there. Also, PC Mizen says that the blood was "still running" and partly coagulated as he saw the body. That would have been at least 5-6 minutes after she was cut, and Jason Payne-James (the medico in the docu) says that a few minutes would be the bleeding out time with the damage she had. He thought that three minutes or perhaps five would be a better suggestion than seven. So there you are.

Why did Paul lie about entering Buck's Row at 4:45am, and why did he lie about being late?

He did neither, as far as I´m concerned. And we cannot be sure that he started at 4 o´clock sharp that day - maybe he had been told to arrive ten minutes earlier for some reason, we have no idea.

What faintest difference would it make if Cross did or didn't tell Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman?

I will try to talk you through it!
1. If Lechmere spoke of another PC, then he lied.
2. One must assume that he had a reason for lying in that case.
3. If Mizen was informed that the carman was the finder of the body, and had been alone with it, he would not let Lechmere go. He would detain him and have him searched, and he would take him back to the murder spot, awaiting assistance.
4. The murder spot was searched intensely for the murder weapon, but it was not found. The conclusion must be that Lechmere - if the killer, of course - carried it with himself out of Bucks Row. And with Paul accompanying him, he could not throw it away, so it would be on his person when searched.

In conclusion, if Lechmere was the killer, he needed to get past the police without being searched. Can you think of any other way to do it, than the ruse that was seemingly used?

Neither can I.

If Lechmere lied about the extra PC, it applies that he was in all probability the killer of Polly Nichols.

[Hair Bear]

I should perhaps inform you that I am actually Holmgren

In that case, I should perhaps take this opportunity to congratulate you on your research and your most interesting documentary. Although I don't believe Cross is the Ripper, I concede that as an obvious suspect (arguably the prime one) he may well be, and therefore should be investigated to the fullest.

That depends on which paper you read. According to the Telegraph, 4th Sept, it was Paul who refused.

[B]Yes, I know. That is the one and only paper that has it that way, which is why I suggest they simply got it wrong.

A fair assumption, although not a conclusive one, and I would say that even if it was Cross who refused to lift her, that doesn't point to his guilt - I'm pretty sure that I would also refuse to move her! As to why Paul offered to move her: if we are going to use speculation, then we could argue that he either banked on Cross' refusal or else didn't care, since ultimately their testimonies would point to Cross having been there first.

Now, how would Paul pin anything on Lechmere by waiting for him to arrive? Lechmere could easily have said goodby and gone off, could he not?

Yes, he could, but then again had Cross been the Ripper he could himself have chosen a couple of different options to the one he did. The choices people make aren't necessarily always the most logical, especially when under pressure.

Right. So let´s eliminate Paul. He would have been merely 16 in 1873 anyway...

Sorry, I'm either missing a joke or a point here. Either way, it makes no sense to investigate only Cross, when we know that Paul, Neal, Mizen and Thain, among others, were in the area and therefore any one of them could, even as an outside chance, be the Ripper. As such, surely you see the sense in investigating fully each individual? You never know, after all.

Now that I have you here, some other points:

I might have this wrong but in the documentary I think you said that Cross didn't work Saturdays. If he starts work at 4am why would he be killing Kelly at 4am?

Much was also made of the fact that Paul didn't see any blood and therefore the killing must have only just taken place, bearing in mind only a few minutes later Neal saw blood - but you failed to mention that Neal only saw the blood by use of his light, which Paul didn't have.

Why did Paul lie about entering Buck's Row at 4:45am, and why did he lie about being late?

What faintest difference would it make if Cross did or didn't tell Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman?

Thanks in advance, Christer.

[Pierre]

Hair Bear: Other than the patently obvious one of pinning it on Cross, I have no idea - much the same as I have no idea why, if Cross killed Nichol's, he, Cross, didn't simply walk on or else sneak off down Winthrop or Court Street (which is what the real killer probably did). Remember that Holmgren's theory tells us that Cross heard Paul coming from the moment Paul enters Buck's Row, which would give Cross loads of time to make his escape. So perhaps you can explain why Cross made the dumb decision to remain with the body?

I should perhaps inform you that I am actually Holmgren
Now, how would Paul pin anything on Lechmere by waiting for him to arrive? Lechmere could easily have said goodby and gone off, could he not?

As for why Lechmere stayed with the body, Andy Griffiths said in the docu that there was no way Lechmere would run, given the amount of PC:s and watchmen around. I tend to agree that it would be a dangerous thing to do. There is also the possibility that Lechmere was in a sort of bubble, cutting away at Nichols, and only heard Paul very late in the process.


That depends on which paper you read. According to the Telegraph, 4th Sept, it was Paul who refused.

Yes, I know. That is the one and only paper that has it that way, which is why I suggest they simply got it wrong.

As I said previously, I don't think either is the killer, but it isn't an "odd reason" why Paul keeps popping up and there's no reason to wonder why. It makes sense to eliminate any possible suspect, not just a prime one - not least because, as history has shown us, it isn't always the (Colin Stagg) prime suspect who did the dirty deed.

Right. So let´s eliminate Paul. He would have been merely 16 in 1873 anyway...

The fact that Paul was so close to Lechmere shows us that the street was frequented by carmen going to work in the early morning hours.

This fact is strongly correlated to finding a victim in the same street.

This fact clearly contradicts your theory about the finder of a victim being the killer of the victim.

[Fisherman]

Hair Bear: Other than the patently obvious one of pinning it on Cross, I have no idea - much the same as I have no idea why, if Cross killed Nichol's, he, Cross, didn't simply walk on or else sneak off down Winthrop or Court Street (which is what the real killer probably did). Remember that Holmgren's theory tells us that Cross heard Paul coming from the moment Paul enters Buck's Row, which would give Cross loads of time to make his escape. So perhaps you can explain why Cross made the dumb decision to remain with the body?

I should perhaps inform you that I am actually Holmgren
Now, how would Paul pin anything on Lechmere by waiting for him to arrive? Lechmere could easily have said goodby and gone off, could he not?

As for why Lechmere stayed with the body, Andy Griffiths said in the docu that there was no way Lechmere would run, given the amount of PC:s and watchmen around. I tend to agree that it would be a dangerous thing to do. There is also the possibility that Lechmere was in a sort of bubble, cutting away at Nichols, and only heard Paul very late in the process.


That depends on which paper you read. According to the Telegraph, 4th Sept, it was Paul who refused.

Yes, I know. That is the one and only paper that has it that way, which is why I suggest they simply got it wrong.

As I said previously, I don't think either is the killer, but it isn't an "odd reason" why Paul keeps popping up and there's no reason to wonder why. It makes sense to eliminate any possible suspect, not just a prime one - not least because, as history has shown us, it isn't always the (Colin Stagg) prime suspect who did the dirty deed.

Right. So let´s eliminate Paul. He would have been merely 16 in 1873 anyway...