Tweet
Apologies if this is done elsewhere and apologies if it lacks accuracy in any details. I’m just trying to get this down and may well revisit if needs be. Thank you.
Bucks Row another way to look at what may have happened. Some main points for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper are centred around Bucks Row and the subsequent events.
Lechmere was ‘found by the body’ is the latest version of events. By whom? Robert Paul?
According to Lechmere ‘he found the body’ then addressed Robert Paul as he came up Bucks Row. The current version of events put forward by the Lechmere Theory supporters are that Lechmere was ‘found by the body.’
So two slightly but important different versions of events. Who is telling the truth?
Lechmere apparently lied at the inquest because he gave the name Cross. Did he? This is important because the Lechmere Theory insists, he lied and thus if he lied at the inquest the rest of his recollection of the events are also lies. A big assumption but to me that is where it stands and falls.
A couple of issues with this are according to Pickford’s website there are no records of a Lechmere working there. There was however a Cross. So for me all Lechmere did was give his correct work details. He did not lie he told the truth. He, for whatever reason was known at Pickford’s as Cross. To suggest it’s anything more is rather ludicrous and if he’d given his name as ‘Lechmere’ and then the Pickford’s address then yes that could have been construed as lying or giving false evidence. Why was Lechmere known to Pickford’s as Cross? I do not know but I doubt when he started there many years previous it was not to give himself an advantage in committing murder some 20 years later.
However Paul did appear to lie to the Newspaper, didn’t he?
He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market.
Testimony Report :- Robert Paul, a carman, said that he lived at 30, Forster Street, Whitechapel. On the morning of the crime he left home just before a quarter to four.
Again how long is ‘just before?’ It’s rather important. However let’s stick with his initial statement to the press initially. Let’s go full on theory mode. Let’s imagine…
Robert Paul left Foster Street much earlier than he states. (Hence where it is stated in the ‘Missing Evidence’ Lechmere and Paul should have been aware of each other before Bucks Row could fall down.) I find the word ‘exactly’ very important thing for him to stress. He is local, he possibly is well aware of the Police beats and timings. He missed PC Neil on ‘Round 1’ of his beat, Neil leaving Bucks row just after 3:15am. Paul now enters Bucks Row and gets to the murder spot, kills Polly, and continues West and then back along Winthrop Street, left onto Brady then left again back to Bucks Row. He has more than enough time to do this. He knows PC Neil will be back at 3:45am hence he states he entered Bucks Row ‘exactly’ 3:45am, he is trying to tell the press he has an alibi because he knows the Police will be there to hopefully back up his story. Unfortunately for him there is another man in the street ‘by the body’ and it’s not PC Neil, it’s Lechmere. Now Paul has a problem. For me this is where he ‘invents’ the rough street routine, the worry of being attacked by a gang etc. A sympathy ploy. Would we suspect a 'victim' witness? Why would a man walk to work along a street six days a week if it is by his own admission dangerous and a risk? It simply makes no sense.
His next lie to the newspaper was to claim he went alone to find a Policeman. Mizen and Lechmere state Lechmere and Paul went together. So there is another lie Paul told. Paul is lying more than Lechmere is accused of, but Lechmere gets labelled Jack. Why?
Since we have no certainty to know what time Paul left home from the newspaper or his testimony (as they both contradict each other) we could imply Paul has the opportunity to kill Polly, double back and try to give himself an alibi. Lechmere puts a spanner in the works, but he still has something to play with, after all we talk about Lechmere’s guilt not Paul’s. It appears his plan has worked, not as intended but it has worked.
We are told in modern policing that criminals can often try to insert themselves into an investigation, maybe for control or power. Paul walked home passed the scene of the crime, possibly to check it out or to see what the gossip was. Here he also gave his statement to the newspaper. Thus inserting himself into the investigation. There is no evidence to suggest Lechmere did. I doubt we would know Paul or Lechmere existed if he had not done this, it would have been PC Neil found the body, next…
At no point did Paul give his home address to the newspaper, just his work address and the name he was known there as, funnily enough the exact same thing Lechmere did. However the Lechmere theory points this out as suspicious and a sign of guilt. A red flag I believe.
In Paul’s statement to the press he also claimed the woman was dead and so cold she must have been dead sometime. Paul here for me is trying to strengthen his alibi. The longer she has been dead the better it is for Paul. Remember he entered Bucks Row at ‘exactly’ 3:45am. However when he has had more time to think about events and to ‘get his story straight’ since inadvertently he has included another witness in Lechmere, Paul’s Testimony statement offers a different scenario. He still relies on the entering Bucks Row at 3:45am to strengthen his alibi. So which version of events is true? Both can’t be so he either lied to the Newspaper or the Inquest. So again it can be stated with no uncertainty that Paul is not great at telling the truth, or at least not great at portraying it second hand.
Remember we also have Paul's commute to work passing some of the murder sites. Again Lechmere is hanged on this point, why not Paul?
The Lechmere theory as argued since its inception relies a lot on when been challenged ‘the other side of the coin.’ This of course is only when it’s convenient for it to do so. For me this post is exactly that, it’s a possible other side of the coin. Another way the players could be involved or not involved in what we know about Bucks Row and the 31st Aug 1888. I’m not putting this forward as Paul being Jack The Ripper far from it but maybe I’m putting it forward he is more likely than Lechmere or at least equal. I’m off to hide now as the ‘what a load of bloody rubbish’ posts come in.
Bucks Row another way to look at what may have happened. Some main points for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper are centred around Bucks Row and the subsequent events.
Lechmere was ‘found by the body’ is the latest version of events. By whom? Robert Paul?
According to Lechmere ‘he found the body’ then addressed Robert Paul as he came up Bucks Row. The current version of events put forward by the Lechmere Theory supporters are that Lechmere was ‘found by the body.’
So two slightly but important different versions of events. Who is telling the truth?
Lechmere apparently lied at the inquest because he gave the name Cross. Did he? This is important because the Lechmere Theory insists, he lied and thus if he lied at the inquest the rest of his recollection of the events are also lies. A big assumption but to me that is where it stands and falls.
A couple of issues with this are according to Pickford’s website there are no records of a Lechmere working there. There was however a Cross. So for me all Lechmere did was give his correct work details. He did not lie he told the truth. He, for whatever reason was known at Pickford’s as Cross. To suggest it’s anything more is rather ludicrous and if he’d given his name as ‘Lechmere’ and then the Pickford’s address then yes that could have been construed as lying or giving false evidence. Why was Lechmere known to Pickford’s as Cross? I do not know but I doubt when he started there many years previous it was not to give himself an advantage in committing murder some 20 years later.
However Paul did appear to lie to the Newspaper, didn’t he?
He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market.
Testimony Report :- Robert Paul, a carman, said that he lived at 30, Forster Street, Whitechapel. On the morning of the crime he left home just before a quarter to four.
Again how long is ‘just before?’ It’s rather important. However let’s stick with his initial statement to the press initially. Let’s go full on theory mode. Let’s imagine…
Robert Paul left Foster Street much earlier than he states. (Hence where it is stated in the ‘Missing Evidence’ Lechmere and Paul should have been aware of each other before Bucks Row could fall down.) I find the word ‘exactly’ very important thing for him to stress. He is local, he possibly is well aware of the Police beats and timings. He missed PC Neil on ‘Round 1’ of his beat, Neil leaving Bucks row just after 3:15am. Paul now enters Bucks Row and gets to the murder spot, kills Polly, and continues West and then back along Winthrop Street, left onto Brady then left again back to Bucks Row. He has more than enough time to do this. He knows PC Neil will be back at 3:45am hence he states he entered Bucks Row ‘exactly’ 3:45am, he is trying to tell the press he has an alibi because he knows the Police will be there to hopefully back up his story. Unfortunately for him there is another man in the street ‘by the body’ and it’s not PC Neil, it’s Lechmere. Now Paul has a problem. For me this is where he ‘invents’ the rough street routine, the worry of being attacked by a gang etc. A sympathy ploy. Would we suspect a 'victim' witness? Why would a man walk to work along a street six days a week if it is by his own admission dangerous and a risk? It simply makes no sense.
His next lie to the newspaper was to claim he went alone to find a Policeman. Mizen and Lechmere state Lechmere and Paul went together. So there is another lie Paul told. Paul is lying more than Lechmere is accused of, but Lechmere gets labelled Jack. Why?
Since we have no certainty to know what time Paul left home from the newspaper or his testimony (as they both contradict each other) we could imply Paul has the opportunity to kill Polly, double back and try to give himself an alibi. Lechmere puts a spanner in the works, but he still has something to play with, after all we talk about Lechmere’s guilt not Paul’s. It appears his plan has worked, not as intended but it has worked.
We are told in modern policing that criminals can often try to insert themselves into an investigation, maybe for control or power. Paul walked home passed the scene of the crime, possibly to check it out or to see what the gossip was. Here he also gave his statement to the newspaper. Thus inserting himself into the investigation. There is no evidence to suggest Lechmere did. I doubt we would know Paul or Lechmere existed if he had not done this, it would have been PC Neil found the body, next…
At no point did Paul give his home address to the newspaper, just his work address and the name he was known there as, funnily enough the exact same thing Lechmere did. However the Lechmere theory points this out as suspicious and a sign of guilt. A red flag I believe.
In Paul’s statement to the press he also claimed the woman was dead and so cold she must have been dead sometime. Paul here for me is trying to strengthen his alibi. The longer she has been dead the better it is for Paul. Remember he entered Bucks Row at ‘exactly’ 3:45am. However when he has had more time to think about events and to ‘get his story straight’ since inadvertently he has included another witness in Lechmere, Paul’s Testimony statement offers a different scenario. He still relies on the entering Bucks Row at 3:45am to strengthen his alibi. So which version of events is true? Both can’t be so he either lied to the Newspaper or the Inquest. So again it can be stated with no uncertainty that Paul is not great at telling the truth, or at least not great at portraying it second hand.
Remember we also have Paul's commute to work passing some of the murder sites. Again Lechmere is hanged on this point, why not Paul?
The Lechmere theory as argued since its inception relies a lot on when been challenged ‘the other side of the coin.’ This of course is only when it’s convenient for it to do so. For me this post is exactly that, it’s a possible other side of the coin. Another way the players could be involved or not involved in what we know about Bucks Row and the 31st Aug 1888. I’m not putting this forward as Paul being Jack The Ripper far from it but maybe I’m putting it forward he is more likely than Lechmere or at least equal. I’m off to hide now as the ‘what a load of bloody rubbish’ posts come in.
Comment