All roads lead to Lechmere.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

although it's a mouthful, The Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury and Cheshire General Advertiser was just one newspaper.




I had a look at the issue in question, too, and there was no description of Robert Paul.

Oh, it looked like two papers to me! That is a long title for a paper. I wonder if it was the result of a merger at some point? Regardless, there is something odd going on. Either the sources listed (being a few sentences on), are sources for some other bit of information and the claim about Paul being in his work clothes is presented unsourced (which is not good practice, but leaves open the possibility that there is a source somewhere), or the author's notes got confused at some point and they've mistakenly thought that both Cross/Lechmere and Paul testified in their work clothes (so a mistake), or this is creative writing (which, in the case of covering historic events would be a no-no, to put it lightly).

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

That is concerning. Given there appears to be 2 sources listed ("After another three lines the source is quoted as the Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury, and Cheshire General Advertiser, 22nd September 1888."), were you able to check both? They may be the same article re-printed in both papers, in which case there is definitely something troubling.

Hi Jeff,

although it's a mouthful, The Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury and Cheshire General Advertiser was just one newspaper.




I had a look at the issue in question, too, and there was no description of Robert Paul.

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

I hate to rain on people, but I have checked that paper on BNA.
I found the report mentioning Robert Paul, but could see no mention of his working clothes Herlock.
That's not a good start on her book.
Maybe I.have missed it.

Steve
----------------------------------------------------

No problem Steve. Getting at the facts is the most important thing.

The full quote from the book is - Like Cross, he appeared in court in his work clothes, rough sacking apron, and recounted his uncertainty as to whether the woman was dead or alive, as he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very feint. He had seen non one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature.

Maybe the quote just confirmed that he saw no one running away or anything suspicious? It still doesn’t answer where she got the info about Paul’s attire as it’s not something that could be stated by mistake. Slightly concerning.

That is concerning. Given there appears to be 2 sources listed ("After another three lines the source is quoted as the Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury, and Cheshire General Advertiser, 22nd September 1888."), were you able to check both? They may be the same article re-printed in both papers, in which case there is definitely something troubling.

Good work to go back and check the original sources Steve. Hopefully it's not an example of creative license, which shouldn't enter into covering an historical case like this with regards to statements of facts.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

No problem Steve. Getting at the facts is the most important thing.

The full quote from the book is - Like Cross, he appeared in court in his work clothes, rough sacking apron, and recounted his uncertainty as to whether the woman was dead or alive, as he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very feint. He had seen non one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature.

Maybe the quote just confirmed that he saw no one running away or anything suspicious? It still doesn’t answer where she got the info about Paul’s attire as it’s not something that could be stated by mistake. Slightly concerning.

Yes, it just gives his account , it is concerning I agree.
I only checked, because the 4th Edition is due out this week, and I sensed an emergency update .

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hate to rain on people, but I have checked that paper on BNA.
I found the report mentioning Robert Paul, but could see no mention of his working clothes Herlock.
That's not a good start on her book.
Maybe I.have missed it.

Steve

No problem Steve. Getting at the facts is the most important thing.

The full quote from the book is - Like Cross, he appeared in court in his work clothes, rough sacking apron, and recounted his uncertainty as to whether the woman was dead or alive, as he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very feint. He had seen non one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature.

Maybe the quote just confirmed that he saw no one running away or anything suspicious? It still doesn’t answer where she got the info about Paul’s attire as it’s not something that could be stated by mistake. Slightly concerning.

[Elamarna]

I’m currently reading One-Armed Jack by Sarah Bax Horton and one point stood out as interesting when we consider the fact that some have for some reason thought it strange that Cross turned up at the inquest in his work clothes. On page 80 she says: ‘The second carman, Robert Paul, testified on the next day of the proceedings. Like Cross, he appeared in court in his work clothes, a rough sacking apron, and recounted….’ After another three lines the source is quoted as the Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury, and Cheshire General Advertiser, 22nd September 1888.

I hate to rain on people, but I have checked that paper on BNA.
I found the report mentioning Robert Paul, but could see no mention of his working clothes Herlock.
That's not a good start on her book.
Maybe I.have missed it.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, that clearly is the smoking gun, he wore his work clothes at the inquest. Therefore, it is clear that Paul was JtR. He was a clever psychopath, and when Cross/Lechmere entered Buck's Row, he quickly circled back to re-enter Buck's Row, giving himself an alibi by being the 2nd on the scene. His checking of of the body for breathing allows him to explain any blood that may be on him, and allowing Cross/Lechmere to take the lead with PC Mizen is a good way to minimize his involvement when dealing with the police. While it probably was a concern to him that Cross/Lechmere continued along with him, trying to shake him would create suspicion so he had to tough it out. The lack of any name exchange (neither witness indicates they got the name of the other), suggests he again minimized conversation on the day. His various statements about the time are there to confuse, again, showing how his devious and planning mind works. Being a psychopath, once he successfully navigated the day, he later could not help but involve himself by talking to the press. By this time, he feels invincible and so caution is no longer needed. Moreover, his Lloyd's statements show the inflated ego of a psychopath, inflating his importance and minimizing Cross/Lechmere, because as a psychopath he cannot stand to share centre-stage.

Note how Chapman's murder is directly on his work route, and Kelly's is also right in the area that his normal route would familiarize himself with. Mitre Square is clearly not far from those obviously familiar areas as well, so his work ties him to those locations. While Stride may not be one of his, of course, but even if she was, there is no reason why anyone who lived in the area wouldn't be familiar with the main streets and locations.

Nicely done Herlock. Case closed I think.

- Jeff

I knew that I’d solve it in the end Jeff.

[JeffHamm]

I’m currently reading One-Armed Jack by Sarah Bax Horton and one point stood out as interesting when we consider the fact that some have for some reason thought it strange that Cross turned up at the inquest in his work clothes. On page 80 she says: ‘The second carman, Robert Paul, testified on the next day of the proceedings. Like Cross, he appeared in court in his work clothes, a rough sacking apron, and recounted….’ After another three lines the source is quoted as the Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury, and Cheshire General Advertiser, 22nd September 1888.

Well, that clearly is the smoking gun, he wore his work clothes at the inquest. Therefore, it is clear that Paul was JtR. He was a clever psychopath, and when Cross/Lechmere entered Buck's Row, he quickly circled back to re-enter Buck's Row, giving himself an alibi by being the 2nd on the scene. His checking of of the body for breathing allows him to explain any blood that may be on him, and allowing Cross/Lechmere to take the lead with PC Mizen is a good way to minimize his involvement when dealing with the police. While it probably was a concern to him that Cross/Lechmere continued along with him, trying to shake him would create suspicion so he had to tough it out. The lack of any name exchange (neither witness indicates they got the name of the other), suggests he again minimized conversation on the day. His various statements about the time are there to confuse, again, showing how his devious and planning mind works. Being a psychopath, once he successfully navigated the day, he later could not help but involve himself by talking to the press. By this time, he feels invincible and so caution is no longer needed. Moreover, his Lloyd's statements show the inflated ego of a psychopath, inflating his importance and minimizing Cross/Lechmere, because as a psychopath he cannot stand to share centre-stage.

Note how Chapman's murder is directly on his work route, and Kelly's is also right in the area that his normal route would familiarize himself with. Mitre Square is clearly not far from those obviously familiar areas as well, so his work ties him to those locations. While Stride may not be one of his, of course, but even if she was, there is no reason why anyone who lived in the area wouldn't be familiar with the main streets and locations.

Nicely done Herlock. Case closed I think.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m currently reading One-Armed Jack by Sarah Bax Horton and one point stood out as interesting when we consider the fact that some have for some reason thought it strange that Cross turned up at the inquest in his work clothes. On page 80 she says: ‘The second carman, Robert Paul, testified on the next day of the proceedings. Like Cross, he appeared in court in his work clothes, a rough sacking apron, and recounted….’ After another three lines the source is quoted as the Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury, and Cheshire General Advertiser, 22nd September 1888.

[rjpalmer]

Another interesting detail is that Harriot's brother Robert Phillips, the Hackney cabman originally from Madley, Herefordshire, also married a woman a decade his senior, as can be seen in the 1881 & 1891 census.

That makes three of them--James and Thomas Cross, and James' brother-in-law, Robert. Perhaps it wasn't as uncommon or as scandalous as some might think for a young man from Herefordshire to marry an older woman.

[rjpalmer]

Ancestry has the England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995, which says that "Harriot Eveness otherwise Cross" was a widow when she died 12 May 1777.

Thanks. I was looking for the record of a will and had missed this. She had a fair amount of money, clearly. The spelling 'Hariott' shows up in at least on other record. The first husband Eveness was a proprietor of a cab service, which must explain the brother Robert Phillips' occupation.

It's looking like the stepfather Thomas Cross wasn't a lone wolf in London; I suspect his brother James was there throughout the 1860s up until his death in 1878, roughly a year after his widow.

[FISHY1118]

I still think this thread should be titled No Roads Lead to Lechmere as he's a terrible suspect.

Gotta agree with you there Wheat.

[John Wheat]

I still think this thread should be titled No Roads Lead to Lechmere as he's a terrible suspect.

[Fiver]

Maybe?

Ancestry has the England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995, which says that "Harriot Eveness otherwise Cross" was a widow when she died 12 May 1777.

[rjpalmer]

Maybe?