A new critique of the Cross/Lechmere theory from Stewart Evans

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting

It is interesting to note that ex-Chief Inspector Walter Dew's 1930s account of the Cross/Paul encounter shows that his take on the incident was that Robert Paul was the suspect party, and not Cross.

Under the definition of 'descriptive terminology' to be used when referring to the Ripper case, Paul would fall under that of 'Non-contemporaneously alleged suspect', whereas Cross was regarded merely as a witness. And, one presumes, Dew was better-informed than we are on the details in this case.

Unfortunately there are errors in Dew's account and he states that Paul 'stayed silent and was never found', a clear, and important, error. From that he ponders, 'Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?'

[lynn cates]

Paul

Hello Edward, Stewart. Nice to see the OTHER lad getting a look for a change.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Mr Evans
That's a very interesting picture that I haven't seen before - would you tell us the source?
Whatever the terminology I think there is a detectable trace to tell us that Paul was briefly a contemporary suspect.
I would put Dew's errors down to the passage of time and also this was at the outset of the series and the earlier incidents got overshadowed - plus this murder didnt happen in his division - unlikeTabram for example who I recall he devoted quite a lot of space to.

[Stewart P Evans]

Dew

Mr Evans
That's a very interesting picture that I haven't seen before - would you tell us the source?...
...

Thomson's Weekly News, Saturday, February 2, 1935, page 3 - 'My Hunt for Jack the Ripper' 'MYSTERY of the SILENT PASSER-BY', by Ex-Chief Inspector Walter Dew. (Pre-publication press serialisation of his book).

[Lechmere]

It is interesting that the caption uses the name Cross, whereas the published book has a dash ----- indicating that Dew could not remember the name.
Maybe the editor looked the name up for the caption.
Would you be able to tell us whether in the main body of the text in the serialisation it mentions Cross by name or use a dash?

[Stewart P Evans]

Publishers

It is interesting that the caption uses the name Cross, whereas the published book has a dash ----- indicating that Dew could not remember the name.
Maybe the editor looked the name up for the caption.
Would you be able to tell us whether in the main body of the text in the serialisation it mentions Cross by name or use a dash?

The name Cross is freely and openly used in the article.

Publishers of books were often very wary of using full names in a context that may have (potentially) involved a libel action. In this case they may have envisaged the second man coming forward, as in reality he was known to be Robert Paul, and alleging a libel in suggesting he was a suspect.

Dew's book, I Caught Crippen, was not published and released until Thursday 19 May 1938, over three years after the article. However, Dew's book was made up of his articles so he would not have 'forgotten' the name Cross.

[Stewart P Evans]

Mystery

As may be seen from the header of this article, in Dew's series, he made a major point of the 'MYSTERY of the SILENT PASSER-BY' [Robert Paul]. Clearly he had, and used, the name of Charles Cross, but not, oddly, Robert Paul.

[Lechmere]

Mr Evans
That is very interesting.
I can just make out Llewellyn’s name also. I believe in the book he is referred to as Dr _____
I have checked the book and Martha Tabram’s husband is referred to as Samuel _____
Annie Chapman’s deceased husband’s previous place of employment is given as ______
There are probably others I missed, yet nearly all properly names are given.
I had natural assumed that the reason Dew had entered the dash was because he could not remember those details.
Do you know if these names are also given in the Thompson Weekly serialisation?
Is the general text in Thompson Weekly News exactly the same?
If the others are mentioned in the newspaper as well, it seems very curious why only these handful of names were replaced with dashes in the actual book.
A three year gap between serialisation and proper publication also seems a long time.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks to Stewart for posting this.


I am absolutely flabbergasted that so many police got so much wrong even the basic facts when writing(and publishing!)about the case later on. You would think that they would have been worried about getting at the very least the basics right and not looking like ignorant fools, especially since they never caught the ripper. Unbelievable.

[Lechmere]

In defence of Dew it was 50 years later and he must have largely been going on memory and who was there to contradict him!
I think given that his account is remarkably accurate.
Further as I think I said, his errors in the Nichols case are more understandable as it was in a different Division.

[Stewart P Evans]

Chapman's husband

Mr Evans
That is very interesting.
I can just make out Llewellyn’s name also. I believe in the book he is referred to as Dr _____
I have checked the book and Martha Tabram’s husband is referred to as Samuel _____
Annie Chapman’s deceased husband’s previous place of employment is given as ______
There are probably others I missed, yet nearly all properly names are given.
I had natural assumed that the reason Dew had entered the dash was because he could not remember those details.
Do you know if these names are also given in the Thompson Weekly serialisation?
Is the general text in Thompson Weekly News exactly the same?
If the others are mentioned in the newspaper as well, it seems very curious why only these handful of names were replaced with dashes in the actual book.
A three year gap between serialisation and proper publication also seems a long time.

From Dew's article in Thomson's Weekly News of February 9, 1935, mentioning Chapman's husband.

[Fisherman]

Many thanks to Mr Evans for sharing the Thomson´s Weekly News article.

From this last clipping, we may see that the paper article contains, word by word, the exact same text as the memoirs, published three years later.

Any question of things being left out due to a wish to avoid legal proceedings can surely be ruled out when the word Windsor belongs to the words left unprinted...?

Anybody who can offer some sort of explanation as to why these words were left out in the memoirs?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Caution

Many thanks to Mr Evans for sharing the Thomson´s Weekly News article.
From this last clipping, we may see that the paper article contains, word by word, the exact same text as the memoirs, published three years later.
Any question of things being left out due to a wish to avoid legal proceedings can surely be ruled out when the word Windsor belongs to the words left unprinted...?
Anybody who can offer some sort of explanation as to why these words were left out in the memoirs?
All the best,
Fisherman

I still think that the reason was caution on the part of the publisher of the book (Blackie).

Giving the man's occupation and the location of his place of work could lead to enquiries being made in an effort to identify the family. Pointless in view of the fact that these details were already in the public domain, but at least the publisher could say they weren't gleaned from the pages of one of their books.

Apropos of Dew's account making a mystery of Robert Paul's identity, he was not the first. An even earlier account of the murders had identified Cross but referred to Paul as 'a stranger' and that he was 'never...heard of again' thus leading me to believe that Dew may have drawn on that account for details.

[Stewart P Evans]

Earlier article...

Here is an extract from the earlier article, published in 1929.

[Lechmere]

There is much to ponder here. Most names were mentioned in the book.
Lechmere died in 1920 so could not be libelled. But they wouldn't know he was dead as they thought he was called Cross - is that an explanation?
The censoring of Windsor seems very odd.
And Llewellyn - the references to him make it quite clear who is being discussed yet his name in the book is given as _____