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

[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.

Well, I canīt provide a better reason myself - but that is not to say that I find it a very good reason. Keeping quiet about Annie Chapmans husband having been a coachman at Windsor fortyseven (47) years after the Ripper killings ...? Decidedly odd, no matter how shaky the publisher was.
But, as I say, lacking any better explanation, itīs the best yet.

The "incrimination" of Paul, if you will, is an interesting item. He may well have been looked upon with great suspicion back in 1888, and thus he may have been handled rather roughly by the police, partly also owing, of course, to his painting out of the Met as total amateurs and not very nice people.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi
It has taken 286 posts to ask a simple question.
If Cross .or indeed Paul, was the killer of Nichols why did the killer let the witness live?
We have a man who was clearly a maniac, soon to be known as Jack the Ripper, let a person who they encountered, survive a situation when. that person would be a very damming to their survival.
He was armed with at least one knife , and was clearly not backward in using it in a revolting and savage manner.
So why did the non guilty one remain intact?
Answer .. Because it happened as it was told. and nothing more sinister.
Can anyone disagree with that observation?
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi lech
I would not defend. Not for an instant. Basically the whole premise of the article is fiction based on faulty memory and or not knowing in the first place Paul was found, was at the inquest and gave a statement. Pretty cavalier and irresponsible I would say and should make one question his credibility as a whole IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

Hi
It has taken 286 posts to ask a simple question.
If Cross .or indeed Paul, was the killer of Nichols why did the killer let the witness live?
We have a man who was clearly a maniac, soon to be known as Jack the Ripper, let a person who they encountered, survive a situation when. that person would be a very damming to their survival.
He was armed with at least one knife , and was clearly not backward in using it in a revolting and savage manner.
So why did the non guilty one remain intact?
Answer .. Because it happened as it was told. and nothing more sinister.
Can anyone disagree with that observation?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
I can, because serial killers usually turn out to be cowards when faced with a situation where an antogonist is on more equal footing. In this case an able bodied man.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Abby,
I agree to a point, however if we look at the personality of Jack the Ripper, we have overall a picture of a person who was extremely violent, who in may cases appeared to have been oblivious to any danger take for instance to kill Chapman underneath windows, and run the risk of someone else entering the yard, not to mention Stride's attacker who was rough, and showed no signs of anxiety when seen to molest .
I should add Millers court ,when he would have been trapped in a corner if disturbed, one could not imagine he could have talked his way out of that situation..by saying ''Hey come and look at this woman''
Its a question how one perceives the killer to respond.
Mine would be in a violent manner.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Richard you are assuming the Ripper was the BS man and you re making a lot of other assumptions abut the type of person he was.
It is one thing being brutal with an oldish and half drunk woman who cannot be able to put up much of a fight. It is quite another to rapidly disable and silently kill a man. He wasn't trained by the SAS.
As Abbey says, serial killers do not tend to turn on witnesses. It is exceptionally rare. So to raise it as an objection is a bit of a non starter.

Abbe - for some reason I have a soft spot for Dew - so I can't agree!

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lechmere.
Until we can disprove that the Ripper did not kill Stride, It is right to assume.
Are you saying it is unlikely that a killer would turn on a male, if forced into a position where he was protecting his freedom.
How much courage would it take to ram a blade into a mans body, and disable him, and slice his throat, also have we the physical details of Cross and Paul, if Strides Killer was indeed the Ripper he certainly was not the meek and mild type.and if he appeared to have broad shoulders , there's a good chance he was a meaty individual.
Are we really suggesting that all murders victims are women , and men are to timid to kill there own sex?
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

Hi Richard

Small point : I'm 60/40 for the Ripper killing Stride, but very much doubt that the Ripper was BS.

[Lechmere]

I'm 99% sure Stride was a Ripper killing and, oh, 75% sure it wasn't done by BS man.
Irrespective of whether Lechmere was the Ripper.

Richard
The scenario where Lechmere met Paul was not a do or die one was it. So your cornered rat scenario is a bit irrelevant.
By the way I don't want to nit pick but shouldn't he have sliced his throat first (to prevent a cry), then ram the blade into his body and disabled him?

[Damaso Marte]

Hello Lechmere.
Until we can disprove that the Ripper did not kill Stride, It is right to assume.
Are you saying it is unlikely that a killer would turn on a male, if forced into a position where he was protecting his freedom.
How much courage would it take to ram a blade into a mans body, and disable him, and slice his throat, also have we the physical details of Cross and Paul, if Strides Killer was indeed the Ripper he certainly was not the meek and mild type.and if he appeared to have broad shoulders , there's a good chance he was a meaty individual.
Are we really suggesting that all murders victims are women , and men are to timid to kill there own sex?
Regards Richard.

Many people on this site believe that Stride was not a Ripper victim, and many people also believe that Israel Schwartz made up his testimony. In fact, some people believe both of these things.

You are free to believe what you want, but you will not get far on this site by assuming both that Stride is a Ripper victim AND that Schwartz is a believable witness.

(Personally, I think Stride was a Ripper victim, but I do not believe Schwartz's story. If Schwartz was proven correct, I would abandon Stride as a Ripper victim)

[richardnunweek]

Hi Damaso Marte,
Again its all down to opinions.
I consider Stride more likely to have been a victim of the Ripper then not.
All I was suggesting was the possible character of her attacker, if Schwartz was accurate, and his personality showed no mildness.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lechmere,
How do you know what was going on in Lechmere's head when Paul arrived on the scene?
If ..and only if he was the killer, he would have felt threatened by this intruder, and regardless if the throat before the torso was usual practice he would have attempted to kill him, otherwise we would have a living witness able to identify a possible killer.
Surely that is more likely then let him walk away?
As for the cutting of the throat first I disagree.
It is awkward to get in a position to cut the throat of a person who is on his guard like Paul was. but a thrust in the abdomen or two would disable resistance, so that the throat could be the final strike. .
Just my opinion.so why did the killer of Stride not attack Schwartz?
Simply.. Young Schwartz ran away.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Richard
I try to avoid speculating on what was in the killers mind unless asked - as clearly we don't know. But you are claiming to know for sure!
In the scenario where Lechmere did it, he clearly didn't feel it necessary to kill Paul as he successfully bluffed his way out if it.
If you raised the objection to Lechmere as the culprit that he must have or should have killed Paul and as he didn't then he can't have been the culprit then it is not the case.

Why didn't he kill Dimschutz?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lechmere.
I do not try to get in anyone's head, because as you state ''we don't know''
The logical reason why there was no other person but Nichols lying in Bucks Row, was that both Lechmere and Paul were simply innocent witnesses.
If one of them was a homicidal maniac, then the other would surely be laying beside her.
Why did he not kill Dimschutz?
Because in my honest opinion ..the killer was not present when he arrived at the yard.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Corbett’s Court in relation to Great and Little Pearl Street.