Charles Cross

[Lechmere]

Hi Glenn
I don’t think you shouldn’t get hung up over a loose word here or there.
Journalists are not experts in the case – most know nothing at all and try to put a story together quickly and based on partial information and then have to decipher their own short hand.
Also a charity occasion, such as that which sparked the interest in the Lechmere theory, will necessarily involve people in the organisation and promotion of the event who might be very keen, well meaning and helpful, yet unaware that every little detail of a press release would be dissected by ‘Ripper enthusiasts’ (if that is the right term).

The fact that this theory was trending on the internet shows that there is widespread interest in this field of study and people should be gratified about that.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Monty, and thanks.
Not really a real comeback, though. Just that this development got me a bit curios. I am myself quite a supporter of the Cross/Lechmere idea and since I know Fisherman personally it brought it all back to me a bit.

Hope all is well with you and the others.
Sorry I can't make to the conference this time either but again, it's a money issue. Would love to be there and see many of you again.

Cheers
/Glenn

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Just like you say, nowhere is it on print that Lechmere (I prefer to call him that, and not Cross) was ever crouching over the body. In Paul´s initial contact with the press, he says that Lechmere was standing "where the body was", and subsequently it is spoken of the middle of the road. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that it matters little if it was one, two or five yards - it still allows for him having done the deed and backed off as he noticed Robert Paul.

Absolutely, I agree, and I think it is a reasonable assumption.
So I am not disputing that. What worries me a bit is your co-writer is cited saying very clear and definitive things like
"He was seen crouching over Polly Nichols and he was trying to cover up some of the wounds."
[...]
"Paul claimed he had seen Cross standing by the body of Nichols when he had arrived but Cross later told police he had been standing away from the body in the road."
And stating them like they were facts, when in fact they are not and - as I understand - only personal interpretations.

Those things stated above in the interview are a very long way from "standing where the body was" which could mean anything, and of course there is no evidence at all that he was leaning over the body although he most certainly could have been before Robert Paul arrived.

Now, I have myself personal experience from journalists twisting your words beyond recognition, but the statements from Edward Stowe are still remarkable.

However, once again I must stress , that I much rather prefer to rely on what a witness says under oath during an inquest than what he says to a newspaper reporter in the initial stage. There can be no question, as far as source criticism is concerned, that the description he gave during the inquest that Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road" is a more credible source and reliable piece of information.

But again, this doesn't in any way dispute Lechmere's candidacy for Jack the Ripper or that things could have happened as described. I just think Stowe went too far in his statements by presenting these things like facts, even though I personally may agree with the interpretation as such.

But never mind that - let´s get together over a beer, and I will fill in the gaps in all of this. Just like you say, Lechmere has been a suspect for a number of years, mainly owing to Michael Connor´s research - but more has been added, much more, and if I am not very much mistaken, there are further developments ahead.

Indeed we must, Fisherman.

All the best
/Glenn

[Fisherman]

Glenn:

"I have been away from the Ripper scene for quite a while, so bear with me - new material may have come up since I last buried myself into the case - but I am a bit puzzled by a couple of Edward Stowes cited claims in The Telegraph:

"He was seen crouching over Polly Nichols and he was trying to cover up some of the wounds."
[...]
"Paul claimed he had seen Cross standing by the body of Nichols when he had arrived but Cross later told police he had been standing away from the body in the road.""

Let´s take it from the beginning, Glenn: a warm welcome back to the boards!! We need to get together and have a beer as soon as possible!

Then, on to the two quotations; where is the source? Well, I´d say probably on the office of the Daily Telegraph. Just like you say, nowhere is it on print that Lechmere (I prefer to call him that, and not Cross) was ever crouching over the body. In Paul´s initial contact with the press, he says that Lechmere was standing "where the body was", and subsequently it is spoken of the middle of the road. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that it matters little if it was one, two or five yards - it still allows for him having done the deed and backed off as he noticed Robert Paul.

The Telegraph also got the name wrong ("Latchmere") just as they missed out on the fact that the Stride killing was NOT something that happened along Lechmere´s route to work. These things will happen every now and then, and I can say that there was a very large and sudden haste since the reporter could not open the documents we had sent over, meaning that there was a very hasty interview made over the phone, in direct connection with the event in St Johns.

But never mind that - let´s get together over a beer, and I will fill in the gaps in all of this. Just like you say, Lechmere has been a suspect for a number of years, mainly owing to Michael Connor´s research - but more has been added, much more, and if I am not very much mistaken, there are further developments ahead.

All the best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Monty]

Hi, Mr Lucky.

Thanks for that. Haven't seen that one.
However, "when i saw a man standing where the woman was" is a much vaguer statement than saying that he saw Cross standing directly by the body or leaning over it. It is certainly not the same thing.

And of course, I would rather rely on what he said under oath during the inquest rather than what he stated to a newspaper and a Lloyd's representative anyway.

All the best

Good to see you back Glenn,

Monty

[Mr Lucky]

And of course, I would rather rely on what he said under oath during the inquest rather than what he stated to a newspaper and a Lloyd's representative anyway.

Hi Glenn

Here's two of my favourites from the 'Paul under oath' folder -

'He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not.’ - St James Gazette 18th Sept. 1888

‘He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing.’ - Daily news 18th Sept. 1888

Best wishes

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi, Mr Lucky.

Thanks for that. Haven't seen that one.
However, "when i saw a man standing where the woman was" is a much vaguer statement than saying that he saw Cross standing directly by the body or leaning over it. It is certainly not the same thing.

And of course, I would rather rely on what he said under oath during the inquest rather than what he stated to a newspaper and a Lloyd's representative anyway.

All the best

[Mr Lucky]

"He was seen crouching over Polly Nichols and he was trying to cover up some of the wounds."
[...]
"Paul claimed he had seen Cross standing by the body of Nichols when he had arrived but Cross later told police he had been standing away from the body in the road."

Where is the source for this?

Hi Glenn

It's from Paul's 'Remarkable Statement' first published in Lloyd's Weekly News 2nd Sept. 1888 - 'It was dark. and I was hurrying along when i saw a man standing where the woman was'.

Paul gave the statement to a Lloyd's representative on friday night.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Fisherman,

I agree, Paul Cross is indeed an interesting suspect and I believe one of the better that has come across in a long time although the idea is not new.

Now, I have been away from the Ripper scene for quite a while, so bear with me - new material may have come up since I last buried myself into the case - but I am a bit puzzled by a couple of Edward Stowes cited claims in The Telegraph:

"He was seen crouching over Polly Nichols and he was trying to cover up some of the wounds."
[...]
"Paul claimed he had seen Cross standing by the body of Nichols when he had arrived but Cross later told police he had been standing away from the body in the road."

Where is the source for this?
I can't find anything about what is claimed to be Robert Paul's first version, where he is supposed to have said at first that he saw Cross leaning over or standing by the body. Where does this come from?
Can't anything in either of the reports from the inquests by The Times or The Telegraph that supports this or in the police summary reports.

As far as Paul's witness testimony from the inquest, reported by The Times on September 18 and in The Telegraph (which both are quite similar in content), it says:

"...as he was passing up Bucks-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness [Robert Paul] approached him, he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him by."

Albeit, according to this, Cross was standing in the middle of the road and I haven't found anything that says otherwise.
But as I said, I am a bit dusty and may have missed it, if it's a new piece of information.

All the best
/Glenn

[Lechmere]

I would suggest the most likely scenario would be that he went home after work - changed, freshened up and went to visit his mother and daughter. Striking on the way home - perhaps after a pint in a local pub.

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"On the morning of 30th September 1888 was Crossmere going to his mother's address in Cable Street having just finished a late shift at the Broad Street Pickfords depot, or was he paying her a nocturnal visit from his home in Doveton Street?"

I wish I knew, Simon. Stride died at close to one o´clock. My best guess is that Lechmere had left his mother´s house before that, and - perhaps - fuelled up at a local pub. He would have been very familiar with the surroundings.
But we can only offer guesswork here. These were Charles Lechmere´s old hunting grounds, and he may have known quite a lot of people around here - and visited them, perhaps. Just as he may have called on his mother, he may equally have spent time with somebody else he knew there. He had many years experience of the neighbourhood.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Thank you.

On the morning of 30th September 1888 was Crossmere going to his mother's address in Cable Street having just finished a late shift at the Broad Street Pickfords depot, or was he paying her a nocturnal visit from his home in Doveton Street?

Regards,

Simon

[Lechmere]

In December 1889 Charles Lechmere's mother lived at 147 Cable Street.
At the time of the 1881 census his mother lived at 23 Pinchin Street.

In 1881 and until 11th June 1888, Charles Lechmere lived at 20 James Street (now Burslem Street) which is a couple of hundred yards east from the site of Liz Strides murder on Berner Street and the location where the Pinchin Street Torso was found, and from where his mother lived.

In 1861 Charles Lechmere lived at 143 Thomas Street - which was later renamed Pinchin Street.

[Monty]

PC Pearce live in Mitre Square during Eddowes murder, also in the Peabody building off Glasshouse Street during Coles murder, as did Pennett.

Hmmmm

Monty

[Fisherman]

147 Cable Street, Simon - with his daughter. It´s in the immediate vicinity of the railway arch where the Pinchin Street torso was found; just south of it. And Lechmere himself had experience of having lived in that exact area, since he had lived in both Maryann Street and James Street. It was his old back yard, more or less.

The best,
Fisherman