Tweet
And a nice cup of tea.
-
-
Lock up your daughtersComment
-
I dont know much about Pickfords, did many people work there?be just and fear notComment
-
No, I wasn't really. I was saying that suspects who have been mentioned by police and any other contemporary or near-contemporary sources carry a bit more weight than those that were never mentioned as being a suspect in any way at all.Originally posted by Lechmere View PostComment
-
To interrupt these enlightening discussions for a moment…
Mr Evans’ second post concerned Robert Paul’s statement as reported in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper on Sunday 2nd September 1888:
‘On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said:- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row in my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I know the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at this spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.'
In his fifth post Mr Evans said:
‘The official written statement made by Lechmere/Cross has not survived, but who knows, it may have carried a police note to the effect that Lechmere wanted his (old) alternative surname to be used as he didn't want his family pestered by the press or anyone else. He wanted to avoid public identification. As we see, Paul was soon traced by the press and interviewed, so if this was Lechmere's reasoning it obviously worked. The report on Paul's interview started, '...Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement...", indicating that the press had got hold of his address and were waiting for him there in order to interview him.’
I will clarify this bit first.
Mr Evans speculates that Lechmere may have told the police his true identity and the police agreed to keep it quiet to avoid him being pestered by public identification. Mr Evans will be in a better position than me to know whether the police would do such a thing, but it does not explain why in their internal reports the police also kept his true identity secret.
Nor does it explain why Lechmere was not allowed to mask his address and place of work. Actually I am fairly sure that Lechmere gave his address to the police but avoided giving it in open court. However an enterprising Star journalist did obtain his address and publicised it. In any event surely if Lechmere wanted to remain anonymous he would have got agreement from the police to mask his workplace and residence.
So this explanation makes zero sense.
What of Mr Evans’ second suggestion – that Paul was traced by the press, after they got hold of his address and were waiting for him on his return from work.
How could this have worked? On the Friday evening, the day of the murder, the press had no idea that Robert Paul even existed. Until Paul’s statement was published on the Sunday evening it was believed that PC Neil had discovered Polly Nichols’ body. The police even held a press conference of some sort to contradict the Paul statement. It was only when Lechmere turned up at a police station to corroborate Paul’s account (and subsequently appear at the inquest) that the script had to be re-written.
Before anyone says anything, Lechmere could not have predicted that the police would initially deny Paul’s account.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that Paul bumped into a journalist while on his way home – probably passing back down Buck’s Row – and volunteered his story.
Paul actually gave his story to the Lloyds Weekly Newspaper twice, as in that same issue, 2nd September, was the following snippet:
‘Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.’
Lloyds embargoed the story until Sunday evening. However there were a couple of rumours in provincial newspapers about two other men being around the crime scene, but these were somewhat inaccurate. It is possible that the Lloyds story leaked a little, or Paul was overheard giving his account to the Lloyds journalist, or they may just be inaccurate coincidental rumours.
What can we make of Paul’s statement?
I actually agree with Mr Evans’s comment…
‘It will be noted that this report has apparently been 'slanted' to increase Paul's importance as it does not mention the fact that Lechmere/Cross accompanied Paul and found the police officer (Mizen) with him. It also takes the opportunity to have a 'pop' at the police.’
Paul ‘bigs up’ his own role. He is decisive.
‘I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not.’
You would almost think that Paul was alone. He took the lead role in approaching the body. He diagnosed what had happened to the woman. He decided to go and find a policeman while on his way to work. He told the policeman what had transpired.
The policeman (Mizen) testified that he spoke to Lechmere (in the guise of Cross) not Paul. In Mizen’s testimony Paul is a hanger on. Lechmere also testified that he did most of the talking, although he did give Paul a bit part in the dialogue to make it appear that he wasn’t solely responsible for the conversation he had with Mizen. This was obviously important to Lechmere as Mizen had claimed that Lechmere had lied to him about being wanted by a policeman in Buck’s Row.
When Paul eventually appeared at the inquest he did not big up his own exclusive role (The Times 18th September):
‘Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway… They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met… They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen… Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.’
The Daily Telegraph on the same day confirmed that Paul walked off in company with Lechmere:
‘The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.’
It is noteworthy that at the inquest Paul used ‘they’ while in his bragging statement he used ‘I’.
In front of the journalist it was all 'me, me, me' – and I strongly suspect that part of the reason for this was because he wanted some money for his exclusive – but at the inquest, in front of authority, he was a different person. His bravado shrunk away.
What else can be told from Paul’s statement?
He describes the strange way Lechmere approached him. It led Paul to believe he was about to be mugged:
‘He came a little towards me, but as I know the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth.’
Paul repeated his account of this strange meeting at the inquest (Daily Telegraph):
‘As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder.’
Most men would not voluntarily admit that they felt intimidated by the approach of another man – so I take it that Paul was a bit of a wimp and that Lechmere established a dominance over him during that initial phase.
In his newspaper interview Paul says that he knew she was dead:
‘I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle.’
And
‘I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.’
Not only was Paul sure she was dead, but he was sure she had been dead for some time and he had a dig at the police for failing to find her sooner. He also had a swipe at Mizen for continuing to knock up, even after Paul claimed he had told Mizen that the woman was dead.
Remember that Mizen said his conversation was only with Lechmere.
Was Paul really sure she was dead? In his inquest testimony he said (from The Times):
‘While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.’
Or (from the Daily Telegraph)
‘The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.’
We see that Paul described trying to pull Nichols dress further down over her legs to make her more decent – which also implies he thought she was alive.
Why was Paul so adamant in his Lloyds interview that he knew Nichols was dead?
I suspect it was partly to avoid criticism for abandoning an unconscious woman.
But I think the main reason was that by the time he gave his interview, on the day of the murder, the evening papers were already out with lurid headlines shouting out the details of the latest Whitechapel horror and he didn’t want to appear stupid in not realising that she was dead.
Besides his inquest testimony we have another source of information about Paul. He made another statement to the Lloyds Weekly Newspaper that was printed on 30th September 1888:
‘Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day.’
It seems to be wholly in character for Paul to be bitching about the police.
It is also interesting that following his newspaper story and the appearance of Lechmere, Paul did not come forward but was actively sought out and found.
Why didn’t Paul come forward?
Probably he wasn’t very public spirited. After all he willingly and callously abandoned a woman who he presumed was defenceless and unconscious lying on the street.
We can also see that there was a financial reason to avoid coming forward. (Perhaps that was one reason Hutchinson didn’t come forward until after the Kelly inquest was over).
Dew in ‘I Caught Crippen’ remembered (a little inaccurately which is understandable as it was written 50 years later) the hue and cry to find Paul:
‘All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman (meaning Lechmere). It never had the corroboration of the other man (meaning Paul). The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.
In summary what can we tell about Paul?
I would say he was a craven character. Slagging the police off behind their backs yet saying nothing bad about them when in court.
He was jumpy when Lechmere approached him.
He bragged to the newspaper about his own role which was clearly secondary.
He must have been callous and selfish – self-centred and conceited.
He was by chance the ideal foil for Lechmere.
One last thing.
Paul’s interview was published on 2nd September
Lechmere appeared at the inquest on 3rd September
Annie Chapman was murdered on 8th September
Paul appeared at the inquest on 17th September
Lechmere and Paul walked off together down Hanbury Street after the meeting with Mizen.
They passed no 29 and 100 yards later the parted. Paul turned into Corbett’s Court, Lechmere continued to Broad Street Station.
Just eight days later Annie Chapman was killed in the back garden of no. 29.
When did the police raid Paul’s house?
I think it is almost certain that they did this after the murder of Annie Chapman.
I think the reason the next victim was killed in that general location was to incriminate Paul.Last edited by Lechmere; 09-17-2013, 05:28 PM.Comment
-
You were doing pretty good until that last paragraph... constructing a feasible rebuttal. Rowed through the waves into calmer waters... then shot a hole in the boat.Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________
When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Comment
-
Yeah, I agree. To incriminate Paul??
Where did this premise come from?Comment
-
Good morning Christer
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
As I noted, all these (electoral resister, the census, his children’s baptisms and their marriages. Their school records, his shop keeping in trade directories)
are what I refer to as his "Sunday-best" name, relating to his kids and business, although he didn`t have a shop in 1888 and his kids were yet to be married, so how many of the examples were from after 1888, and we specifically need to know what he may have used in 1888.
Of course, you are saying that he called himself Cross and his boss would confirm it. But what makes you think the police would favour asking his boss over asking his family? And if he was honest, why not just say "My name is Lechmere, but I am known as Cross where I work"?I don`t think they would have asked either his wife or boss about him. But he would need time off work, and whatever paperwork there would be regarding his inquest appearance it obviously had the name Cross upon it, and he would have shown it to his boss to explain why he needed time of work. So, he must have been known as Cross at work.]
These similar situations cannot be the sort of examples that Edward gave.At the police station, he would have been asked what his name was, and he gave it as Cross. In any other instance we have recorded of similar or closely similar situations he gives his real name.
Okay, if guilty his easiest option was walk away the minute he noticed Paul approaching (was it seventy yards away down Bucks Row?), or even try the easier scam of telling Paul," oh, look at her over there mate, out of her skull" and walking on.[B]Alternatively, he was surprised by the arrival of a newcomer and decided to find out what the man had seen - he could be a lethal threat. And then he walked along with the newcomer, who was the one to suggest finding the copper, remember - and that made it look as they were travelling together, thus making him look less suspicious, plus it provided him with a chance to chekc what Paul said to the PC, plus he could form a ruse of his own
Perspectives, Jon - it is all about perspectives.]
Sorry, I disagree. We can have many names in life. Especially when you have different fathers or custdonians. A flase name would have been if he gave the name Billy Jones or Raymond Luxury-Yacht.]I have stated my case hundreds of times on this. You have one real name and one real name only. All the rest of the names are false. Some are more explicable if used, others not. Some are used with good intent, others not. But all but the real name are false names. Otherwise, anybody could have a hundred correct names. .
I`m not doubting your observations, only the false name thing, for the reasons given. But saying that, I could pick.. say John Richardson and create an equally damning picture, probably more so. Richardson admitted to carrying a knife and his testimony clashed with the medical opinion. Comparing descriptions, he could also have been Pipeman.- The man that called himself Cross, Sir - he is really called Lechmere. He lied about his name!
- Weīve found out that his working route seemingly may have taken him past the Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly murder sites!
- Ooops - it seems the murders were all committed in the early mornings, when this guy passed on his way to work!
- Ello, ello - what have we gotīere? The Stride killing was commmitted where he used to live! And the Eddowes slaying was committed along his old work trek from James Street to Pickfords! And you know what? These killings were committed earlier - and on a Saturday; his night off!
- Jesus, Sergeant - he may well have butcher skills; his mother runs a cats meat business.
- Oh-oh - and she lives in 147 Cable Street.
- What? 147 Cable? But thatīs just round the corner from where that torso was found, is it not?
- Holy smokes! Look at what he told Mizen on the murder night: He said that another PC was waiting for him there!
- Yeah, but there was, was there not? PC Neale was there.
- Idiot! How would Lechmere have known that? He testified that there was never any PC in Buckīs Row!
- Oh, my God .. but that means ...!
Any chance that they would have taken an interest in him if they had had this information, Jon? What do you think? Is this something that would alert them or not? .]Last edited by Jon Guy; 09-18-2013, 12:27 AM.Comment
-
Confusing
Again I am not indicating that I am joining in this 'debate', but I do wish to address the above point. These 'debates' merely highlight the often confused, confusing and contradictory nature of the contemporary press reports.Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
Apropos of the police reports I thought I had included in my posts the fact that the surviving police reports are only partial survivals of what must have been extensive material that also included all the original written witness statements taken at the time. What survives are summary reports submitted for information and to update the state of police inquiries.
Ergo we simply do not have the full picture from the police side of things, as is the case with all of these murders. This allows theorists to put their own 'spin' on what has survived.
What must be obvious is the fact that with the first (possibly second) murder of this series we see the name Cross with his (correct) address and (correct) employer given in the police reports. That is a pretty unsafe way to hide your identity from the police merely by changing your surname from Lechmere to Cross.
We simply do not know what was contained in the initial internal police reports which would have been submitted with the original witness statements. Therein may have lain the answer to all our speculation. That is merely what I 'speculated', dare I say it was 'informed' speculation, I was a police officer for nearly 30 years and I have dealt with hundreds of witnesses and taken as many statements. I have also acted as coroner's officer on many occasions.SPE
Treat me gently I'm a newbie.Comment
-
Jon Guy:
Good morning Christer
Good morning, Jon!
I don`t think they would have asked either his wife or boss about him. But he would need time off work, and whatever paperwork there would be regarding his inquest appearance it obviously had the name Cross upon it, and he would have shown it to his boss to explain why he needed time of work. So, he must have been known as Cross at work.
"Whatever paperwork", yes - he appeared at the cop shop on Sunday evening, by the appearance of things, and the inquest was the day after that. I see no need at all for him to have been handed any paperwork, Jon. Nor do I think that we must accept that his boss would have demanded to see any paper. A trusted employee is a trusted employee, and it was not as if his boss stood to loose financially or something such from it. He only needed to get himself a sub for the day, and subs came in scores.
These similar situations cannot be the sort of examples that Edward gave.
Itīs authority versus citizen. Iīm sorry if we canīt oblige with Police versus citizen. What we have is what we have - and what we must go by.
Okay, if guilty his easiest option was walk away the minute he noticed Paul approaching (was it seventy yards away down Bucks Row?), or even try the easier scam of telling Paul," oh, look at her over there mate, out of her skull" and walking on.
We cannot possibly judge this with any certainty. It was a hundred yards, and he only said he noticed Paul when he was 30-40 yards off. I think he may well have wanted to suss out how much Paul had seen, and so he needed to take some time with him. He also may have wanted a blood alibi. And teaming up with Paul gave the distinctive advantage of providing a "look-at-us-carmen-going-to-work-together" alibi. The police would be less interested in such a combo than in a lone man.
It boils down to how cool a customer he was, and whether he could think on his feet. I think he could.
After that, itīs all good and well to say "He would have run - case dismissed". Itīs just that reality can be complex at times.
Sorry, I disagree. We can have many names in life. Especially when you have different fathers or custdonians. A flase name would have been if he gave the name Billy Jones or Raymond Luxury-Yacht.
Fine, letīs disagree then. Legally a false name is a name that you are not registered by, the way I see it.
I`m not doubting your observations, only the false name thing, for the reasons given. But saying that, I could pick.. say John Richardson and create an equally damning picture, probably more so. Richardson admitted to carrying a knife and his testimony clashed with the medical opinion. Comparing descriptions, he could also have been Pipeman.
Iīm afraid you canīt. You cannot place Richardson close to all the murder sites by way of logical reasoning, you cannot produce a logical reason as to why he would have been at the sites at the relevant hours, you cannot point out what seems to be a lie to evade the police like the Mizen scam, you do not have Richardson arriving to the inquest in working clothes, you do not have any record of his family being involved in a trade that teaches butchery skills, you have no record of Richardson having his family staying close to the Saturday night murder sites, you donīt have him giving the police a false name etcetera, etcetera.
What we can do with Richardson is to propose him as Chapmanīs killer, nothing else. Lechmere can on very good grounds be proposed as the killer of all the victims. So no, Richardson does not compare at all in that context.
All the best,
FishermanComment
-
Richardson was closely questioned by the police and cleared - he had to produce his knife.
We have no reason for believing Lechmere was similarly questioned and plenty of reasons for believing he was not.
Scott and Hunter
Paul was found by the police after presumably a slightly demanding search and dragged out of bed at night and interrogated.
He worked about 100 yards from the Chapman crime scene.
We don't know exactly when he was raided but given the timeline I think it is a fair guess
that it was after the Chapman murder and the seriousness with which the police clearly treated him indicates they may have suspected him of this crime.
He and Lechmere had walked off together - coincidentally past the pending Chapman murder scene. Lechmere learnt where Paul worked.
Lechmere would have know that Paul hadn't come forward.
I think all this explains why Chapman was killed where she was killed (not the exact location - the general location) and the timing - very soon after the Nichols murder.
As Fisherman has pointed out, the medical evidence suggested she was killed more or less the same time as Nichols.
However if she died later I can think of a scenario where Lechmere could still have dunnit.Comment
-
I know Mr Evans doesn't want to get drawn into this but his speculation that the police agreed to mask Lechmere's identity holds no water because they didn't mask his address and workplace.
That creates a rival conundrum - if guilty why provide those details while just changing his surname?
Obviously we don't know - the main point I would make is that the mere fact of him using the name Cross out of the blue is very odd.
This was very much a 'Sunday best' event.
He had already called himself Lechmere on censuses, his marriage, the electoral register his children's baptisms and their school records - as recently as June 1888.
Maybe Lechmere was more concerned. about hiding his name than his address.
Maybe he was not expecting to be asked his address.Comment
-
Well, he certainly produced a blunt knife, but not the sharp one he used at the market a few minutes after leaving number 29 to finish his bit of leather trimmimg.Originally posted by Lechmere View PostComment
-
Okay, my friend, we will have to agree to disagree on the name thing. :-)
I can make a good (circumstantial) case for Richardson, and I would liked to have had a go, but here is not the right thread.Originally posted by Fisherman View PostComment
-
If Cross killed Chapman at that time and at that place to incriminate Paul for the Nichols and Chapman murders - and the suggestion seems to be that that was his motive, rather than acting under some inner compulsion - then one might expect Cross to have been careful to only do to Chapman what he'd done to Nichols (i.e. some comparatively minor mutilation and no organ theft). By increasing the severity of the attack, Cross would have run the risk of creating the impression that the killer of Nichols had been interrupted - perhaps by Paul.....Comment
Comment