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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[lynn cates]

Paul

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

Cheers.
LC

[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?'

[Stewart P Evans]

Fanciful

A fanciful press depiction of the Cross/Paul encounter.

[Lechmere]

My point Robert is that if we as accurately as possible recreate the sequence of events - from the moment Paul saw Lechmere near the body to, say, Paul's appearance at the inquest (employing along the way informed conjecture and rejecting baseless conjecture), then my submission is that Lechmere as the culprit can be slotted into the narrative quite easily.
Obviously the final stage involves greater use of conjecture but that is the nature of this field so please no tut-tutting on that score.
This is almost the only potential culprit where crime scene discussion can be engaged in.

By the way this highlights that conjecture is involved in all aspects of this case - not just 'suspectology'.
For example discussing the experience of Paul involves conjecture - and this is not explicitly related to the Lechmere theory. It is a discussion in its own right. But where possible I would stick to conjecture that can be backed up by sources. Rather than saying - 'oh I expect they would have done this or should have done the other'.

You seem to think that Lechmere should think in a totally logical manner. Slightly weird thinking and connections are common place with serial killers. Their minds - need I remind you - do not work in the same way as yours, I hope.

In any event, theoretically Paul could have killed Nichols, travelled west down Bucks Row into Brady Street and then seen Lechmere hurrying along. He could have then followed Lechmere back down Buck's Row etc etc.
I don't think this is a realistic proposition - besides anything else it doesn't explain the lack of posing of the body which is suggestive of the killer being disturbed. I just say that in case anyone runs with the idea that Paul really did do it!

I would guess that despite the fact that Lechmere was at Brown's Stable Yard before Paul, when confronted by Chapman's murder so close to Corbett's Court, the police would have thought of Paul.
Unless he had already been exonerated of the Nichols murder which would mean that he had been fetched up before the Chapman murder.
I just find that unlikely.
I think the police would only have come for Paul in the middle of the night and kept him all the next day for something serious.

PS Proverbs (of which the God fearing police may have been aware)
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

[Robert]

"baseless conjecture"

Well, Lechmere, what would you call your theory about Cross trying to implicate Paul, which goes : man murders woman, but is disturbed by second man. First man then murders second woman on second man's route to work, in the hope of persuading police that second man murdered first woman and then returned to the scene of the crime as an innocent passer-by!

[Stephen Thomas]

enough crew to manhandle the Irish Giant

[ATTACH]15566[/ATTACH]

Blimey, and there's the Eddowes kidney and Mary Kelly's heart beside the lower left leg.

Case closed.

[Lechmere]

Paddy
Are you sure that isn't Joseph Fleming having a crafty kip?

[Lechmere]

Robert
What on earth are you going on about?
Lechmere mentioned that Paul left him at Corbett's Court.
Paul was not at the inquest of course.

I would guess that Lechmere heard the police muttering about Paul - that it was fortunate that at least he (Cross) had shown up unlike the other guy who had slagged them in the press and then stayed snugly in his house, where ever that might be.
Then I think Paul would have receded to the backs of the Police's minds when... Chapman was found a few days later just 100 yards from where Lechmere says he last saw Paul.
Then I think there was a flurry of police activity that led to Paul bring fetched up on the night.
I am pretty certain that is what happened irrespective of whether Lechmere killed Chapman.
And if I hadn't suggested that Lechmere had done it I bet I wouldn't have heard a murmur and these wudda-cudda-shudda unsupported scenarios - this baseless conjecture - would have stayed unsaid!

I have no idea if the police tried looking for Paul in Corbett's Court nor do I know if they checked the pubs - it is unimportant to me.
What is important is sticking to what we do know and for me seeing if it fits a guilty interpretation of Lechmere's actions - and it does!

Wickerman
I dont know why you have this hang up about the authorities knowing about Paul.
the only reason they would have known about Paul prior to the 3rd - so far as any of the evidence tells us - is due to his story appearing in Lloyds on the evening of 2nd. Then we can plausibly add that Lechmere will have given a statement before his appearance - that will have mentioned an unnamed Paul - but the only credible window for his statement is on the night of 2nd.

[Paddy Goose]

I dont know much about Pickfords, did many people work there?

Jenni, enough crew to manhandle the Irish Giant



Pre-eminent among the most extraordinary articles ever held by a railway company is the fossilized Irish giant, which is at this moment lying at the London and North-Western Railway Company’s Broad-street goods depot, and a photograph of which is reproduced here. This monstrous figure is reputed to have been dug up by a Mr. Dyer whilst prospecting for iron ore in Co. Antrim.

Paddy