Chas Lechmere/Cross/Crass/Brass/Glass/etc

[Monty]

Monty
Please list the known aliases in this case that the police did not record.

Thomas Bowyer.

Monty

[Ben]

There's certainly nothing callous or even inappropriate about Cross and Paul leaving to find the nearest policeman, especially given the very high likelihood of them encountering a policeman between the crime scene and the western end of Hanbury Street. Indeed, both men would doubtless have been familiar with the police beats from their trips to work in the morning.

I find this "scamming" business very hard to swallow, especially if the theory involves Paul being somehow conveniently "out of the way" when Cross lied to Mizen (supposedly) about another policeman seeking his assistance in Buck's Row. There is no good reason to think that Paul was not at the very least within earshot of the conversation which took place between Cross and Mizen, and even if he wasn't, it is unthinkable that a policeman should not have sought corroboration from Paul.

There is certainly no evidence that Cross approached Paul in a "menacing manner".

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

IF he was the killer that quote is less than helpful.
IF he was the killer he wouldn't have known initially that Paul wasn't a policeman or a nosey parker
IF he was the killer he couldn't be sure what Paul had or hadn't seen or what he would be able to see

[moonbegger]

I think this also lends weight to the strong possibility, that if Crossmere had not interjected and allowed Paul carry on his route along the north pavement .. he would not have had any cause for concern and saved himself a whole bunch of worry and contriving. IF in fact he was the killer .

Daily news : 4th sept ,

passing through Buck's row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman.

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
You have to bear in mind it was dark - lechmere will have turned and started towards Paul before being fully aware with what he was dealing with. He will not have realised his moral superiority until Paul veered around him.
By turning he removed the scene of confrontation to some yards away from the corpse - potentially valuable space. It would gave been foolish to have stood there as you suggest as he would have had mo room for manoeuvre.
Psychologically he also probably wanted to create distance between himself and the corpse.

[moonbegger]

Lechmere,

If Lechmere was the killer and if he decided to turn and face the approaching human form, then I would guess that he would be committed mentally to saying something, rather than just passively standing there like a big lummox. As it is the meeting is somewhat awkward and unnatural.

I still fail to see why a guilty CrossMere would have felt need to take a pro active position in confronting Paul , it makes no sense whatsoever .. a quick glance over his shoulder would give him all the information he would have needed as to what possible danger he was facing, also what line of action that needed to be taken . By stopping where he was and continuing to look at the dark bundle in front of him there would still be no guilt attached to him if Paul did enquire as to what he was looking at .. Maybe at best a 10% chance of that , baring in mind that Paul would have still been on the north pavement , walking at pace , would he have even made out the form of a woman ( dead or drunk ) laying in the dark shadows ? I think not .

So at what point does CrossMere think " I know this scraggy looking chap racing along the other side of the street may not even pay me the blind bit of notice , he may not even see what the dark bundle laying in the shadow is , and i probably have a 90% chance of walking away Scott free .. but what the hell ! i think i will inject myself into the murder investigation , blood on my hands and knife in my pocket , Just for jolly and hope everthing works out for me "

Really ???

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

Perhaps you are going to move on, cross the road, pass the middle of the said road and then find yourself 'standing where the woman was' - on the pavement - a position that could equally be described colloquially as 'over the body'.
The quotation is from Paul's newspaper interview made the day of the murder. In my opinion, although perhaps not yours, this is a good source.
Paul seemingly had no complaints about being misrepresented as he gave the same newspaper another interview after his eventual appearance at the inquest.

[Bridewell]

Bridewell
“so it is a bit odd to me that you still find it difficult to accept that it can be colloquially stated that Lechmere was found over the body.”

I highlight the word colloquially for you. If every time anyone discussed this case the exact original wording was used then things would get tedious indeed

Edward,

Tedious or not, I think it's important that we don't attribute to witnesses things which they did not say. Robert Paul did not say that the man he saw was "standing over" the body.

The man was in the middle of the road. The body was not in the middle of the road. Ergo, the man was not standing over the body. It's not a question of colloquialism but of accuracy. I can't state my position any clearer than that, I'm going to move on.

[Lechmere]

Caz...
"If Cross was cunning enough to think on his feet and pull this little stunt with Paul, he could easily have discarded the knife while Paul's full attention was on Nichols, so he wouldn't still be carrying it when they went on to report their findings to the next policeman they encountered, which happened to be PC Mizen."

Right, so Paul is crouched for a minute over Nichols’s body and Lechmere takes the opportunity to lob the knife down the road, yes?
Can you see any problem with that strategy? Like noise?

"Alternatively, if he wanted to keep the knife and avoid any contact with the police he could have parted company with Paul sooner, by claiming to be going in a different direction and suggesting that each of them alert the first copper they meet on their separate onward journeys."

Yes because there were a lot of side streets between Bucks Row and the corner of Hanbury Street and Lechmere would really want Paul to bump into a policeman alone and say whatever he wanted to. (I had better point out that this is sarcasm).

By the time he had appeared at the inquest I would expect Lechmere to realise he was in the clear without any suspicion on his shoulders but by contrast he may well have already picked up the police’s irritation at Paul – following his hostile (to the police) newspaper interview and his failure to come forward. Also Lechmere accompanied Paul all the way to his work – no doubt bending his ear and imposing his views on him – and weighing him up as a person.
So, if Lechmere did it and if he was a psychopath, as I would presume he would be – then I would guess he would have had the situation marked out to his satisfaction.
As it is we know Paul was raided and we have good reason to think Lechmere was never troubled by the police again.
Why would Paul be hopping mad at Lechmere? Why would he blame Lechmere for his getting dragged out of bed?
And as I say, you don’t have to search far to find serial killers who kill soon after being involved with the police in their investigation. They tend to be risk takers. I don’t think judging them by what ‘you’ would do will get you very far.

Monty
Please list the known aliases in this case that the police did not record.

Bridewell
“so it is a bit odd to me that you still find it difficult to accept that it can be colloquially stated that Lechmere was found over the body.”

I highlight the word colloquially for you. If every time anyone discussed this case the exact original wording was used then things would get tedious indeed and if you want to use that yardstick you could pull apart every single book written on this subject and any historical subject.

Moonbeggar
If Lechmere was the killer and if he decided to turn and face the approaching human form, then I would guess that he would be committed mentally to saying something, rather than just passively standing there like a big lummox. As it is the meeting is somewhat awkward and unnatural.
When he turned I would guess he would not have known what sort of person he was dealing with. A footpad, a policeman, a wimp – could be any of these and more. As it is I think Paul was a bit of a wimp.
He would have had to psyche himself up for any eventuality.
The point here is that Lechmere behaved pro-actively – going towards Paul and effectively blocking his way and coming across in a sufficiently menacing manner for Paul to think he was about to get mugged. I think Lechmere had psyched himself up then was slightly disarmed and probably relieved by Paul’s meekness.
Perhaps a more natural response, if he was innocent, would have been to stand hesitating by the body and to call out when Paul got nearer.

[moonbegger]

Greetings Lechmere ,

Actually he was walking around Lechmere who seems to have blocked his way.

This was the point i was actually making , Why risk getting involved in the investigation at all ? when there really was no need to insert himself a web of lies and calculated risks in the first place .. Why take an active stance in confronting Paul and alerting him to his fresh kill, when it would have been much easier to say nothing and work off Pauls reaction to the situation .. There would have been no more guilt attached to CrossMere had he adopted a passive stance and let Paul make all the moves ..

Paul was walking along the north pavement .. If CrossMere stopped where he was standing, a couple of steps off the kerb in the middle of the street , facing towards the (bundle) or whatever he thought he was checking out on the south side.. Paul would have either passed by on the north side with maybe a cursory glance , Like he most likely would have done, or at the very best, stepped into the street himself, and asked Crossmere "what's that " your taking a boo at . For the cunning , calculated risk taking mind of the fiend who carried out this series of murders, it would surely not be a hard decision to make . Absolutely no need for him to do anything until he knew what he was dealing with .

You know it makes sense Rodney

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Bridewell]

Bridewell
The reason why proponents of the Lechmere theory have described him as being found over the body of a ripper victim.
It is a tad disingenuous to say that “The person whom Lechmere waylaid (Robert Paul) described him (Lechmere) as 'standing in the middle of the road'.”
You should by now know that Paul gave a press interview on the very day of the murder (31st August) in which he stated (Lloyds Weekly News, 2nd September)
“It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was.”
By the time Paul appeared at the inquest on 17th September it is true that he slightly modified this to (Daily Telegraph 18th September 1888):
“he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road.”
As you say “Bucks Row was not a wide street”,
so it is a bit odd to me that you still find it difficult to accept that it can be colloquially stated that Lechmere was found over the body.

He said the man was “standing where the woman was." in the press interview.

he said, "standing in the middle of the road" in the report on the inquest.

Neither reads:

"standing over the body of a Ripper victim".

I'm all in favour of sticking to the evidence, as you rightly insist that we should, but nowhere does Paul claim that Lechmere was "standing over the body". He says he was "standing in the middle of the road"; the body was not "in the middle of the road"; therefore Lechmere was not "standing over it".

Welcome back by the way.

[Monty]

"In every case where there is a known alternative name for anyone involved in this case, the internal police reports record it."

That is untrue.

Not that it matters. The fact is that the use of different name made not one jot of difference.

The Police knew who he was, where he live and where he worked.

Monty

[caz]

And as for the next victim – in my opinion he did it quickly and in that general location to implicate Paul – Chapman was killed 100 yards from Paul’s workplace and he had not come forward. That ties Lechmere to murder no 2 (or 3).

Hi Lechy,

I should have thought Paul was the last person Cross would have sought to implicate, and so soon, given the scenario Cross himself volunteered to the inquest, which confirmed Paul's account of arriving second at the scene in Buck's Row and having to be steered towards the murdered woman by Cross, who had initially been seen by Paul standing - in your own words - "over the body".

If he had successfully implicated Paul in Chapman's murder, he'd have implicated himself into the bargain, as further questions would inevitably have been asked about both men's involvement in Buck's Row, and we can be sure as eggs is eggs that the completely innocent Paul would have been hopping mad and pointing the finger straight at Cross, knowing that he had been standing "over the body" of Nichols before Paul knew anything was wrong.

If Cross really did have such a close shave in Buck's Row, I very much doubt he would have chosen to kill again the very next weekend in nearby Hanbury Street, before he could have been confident that the police were done with him and not busily checking out the details he had given (as the first person seen with the murdered Nichols) and discovering, for instance, that he had lied about his name.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But that's another C-before-H, how did he know where he would meet Mizen? and therefore be able to judge where best to dump the knife? he might have wanted to dump it in H-div territory across Baker's Row. Once he got past Mizen would he still feel the need to lose the knife?

Hi Mr Lucky,

I thought Cross felt obliged to go through the motions of alerting a policeman as he and Paul made their way on to work, given that he had invited Paul to come and investigate the body with him and they left the scene together. As it turned out Paul probably wanted no more to do with the police than Cross did, but they both took the minimum action any responsible person should have taken in the circumstances: they made sure a policeman was told about the woman.

If Cross was cunning enough to think on his feet and pull this little stunt with Paul, he could easily have discarded the knife while Paul's full attention was on Nichols, so he wouldn't still be carrying it when they went on to report their findings to the next policeman they encountered, which happened to be PC Mizen. Alternatively, if he wanted to keep the knife and avoid any contact with the police he could have parted company with Paul sooner, by claiming to be going in a different direction and suggesting that each of them alert the first copper they meet on their separate onward journeys.

As simple as crossing the street, surely?

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Because...

The Cross/Paul meeting didn't happen as Paul was passing Nichoils, it happened some yards back down Buck's Row, just as Paul would have been seeming to cross the road
Actually he was walking around Lechmere who seems to have blocked his way.
I think he did work off Paul's re-action - his fear of being attacked. This would - I think - have put Lechmere in a dominant position where he told Paul to come over and touch the body.
By so doing Paul might get blood on him and this would at least give Lechmere an excuse for any blood on his own person (they touched different bits of her).

Regarding her clothing - I think it is clear the culprit did pull them down but not fully. Paul pulled them down a little more, but not completely. It is clear they were caught up behind her which inhibited Paul puling them down. Hence given he would have had limited time, sitting there tugging at her dress to make her look neat and tidy wasn't an option for the killer.