POLLY NICHOLS: some questions

[Monty]

Do you see where I'm going?

No Monty I don't - please speak plainly.

Phil

Oh, ok. I thought it was fairly clear.

A murderer just killed someone and instead of fleeing loiters at the spot until another person arrives on the scene, he then draws that persons attention to the victim, stating he feels she is dead then toddles off with that witness to inform a Constable of a woman\victim a few streets away.

Does that add up to you?

Monty

[Supe]

Michael Connor wrote a third essay on Cross/Lechmere that appeared in Ripperologist 94 (August 2008) and he continues to champion him as JtR in other publications. A fictional look at Cross is available in Examiner 7 (April 2011).

That said, I quite agree with Monty that Cross/Lechmere's reported activities that morning argue against his being the Ripper. Still, as with the vast majority of suspects, he can't be ruled out absolutely, so . . .

Don.

[Hatchett]

Hi Everyone,

There is certainly no mention that I can find that Cross was ever investigated. If he was the killer his ploy in calling over Paul and then the two of them walking off to find a constable presumably worked.

If innocent his actions do appear odd. But it was early in the morning. He had found a murdered woman. And it was a strange area full of strange people.

As the Police were linking the first two murders, which are not included in the famous five, then if Cross had had an aliby for those then he would have presumably been discounted.

I wonder if his has been discounted as a serious suspect because he is so difficult to research.

Just a thought.

Best wishes.

[The Grave Maurice]

I don't know. Cross's actions have always seemed, to me, to be those of an unsuspecting passerby who chanced upon an unfortunate (no pun intended) event.

If we start accusing everyone who happened to be in the area of a murder, our list of suspects is going to jump from 100+ to several thousands. Suspicion of guilt must involve more than proximity and odd behaviour. I'd behave oddly too if I found a body on my way to work.

[Supe]

Hatchett,

If innocent his actions do appear odd.

In what way? He is on his way to work, finds a woman on the street, probably dead, does not particularly want to get involved, but does his duty and tells a policeman as he continues on to work. That morning he had no idea anyone would ever remember either him or the victim more than 12 decades later so it is reasonable to expect he saw no need to establish an alibi simply because he found a body. His actions seem quite straightforward to me.

Jeff,

Neil makes a perfectly good point about the level of lighting. To that I would add that we have absolutely no idea of the level of visual acuity Cross possessed, other than as a carman he probably was not blind. Indeed, in a society like the East End recourse to artificial visual enhancement was likely not great. Enough is not made of this, I fear, when weighing the statements of supposed witnesses.

Moreover, he may not have been especially observant because, as suggested previously, he wanted to get on to work and he had (almost assuredly) no idea he was first on the scene to a Ripper murder.

Don.

[lynn cates]

Cross purposes

Hello All. Cross/Lechmere seems to have had a fairly uneventful life after1888. Here is a brief account

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Charles_Cross.html

This is the kind of account that has the pro-Hutchinson camp stoutly resisting an identification with Toppy. They claim that Toppy was too dull and homey to be a violent killer.

Perhaps similar reasoning has caused Cross to be left out of the mix?

Cheers.
LC

[belinda]

I can't find that reference in my copy of the A to Z?

It did interest me to learn that Cross' step father was a Policeman.

[Phil H]

Thanks for all the comments and discussions to date.

Well, to sum up so far, it doesn't look as though Lechmere/Cross was ever given the third degree at the time or since. I think the suggestion that he was ignored because he had alibis for the times when Tabram and maybe Smith were killed is likely. But what about Chapman and Eddowes?

Probably we'll never know!

No doubt predictably on this site some responses seem a little heated that a new idea is being discussed.

As I have made clear, I am not proposing Lechmere/Cross as a killer - in re-examining the Nichols case, I am simply asking whether he was ever considered a suspect - and if not, why not?

In response to those who dismiss him because of his actions as reported:

a) if the arrival of Paul took him by surprise, brazening it out might have seemed a good way out of his predicament, especially if he new a PC might be ahead - scarpering into the arms of the law might have seemed even riskier. Frankly, I don't know and never will;

b) BUT - and its a HUGE but in my opinion - he WAS found standing over the body only a VERY short time after the killing. If someone had been found standing over Chapman, Eddowes of Stride would they NOT have been investigated. Surely Richardson (who did NOT see the body) was given a much harder time at the Chapman inquest than Lechmere ever got? (I know that was about timing, but all the same...!And Richardson's testimony has since been questioned.) So I think there is AT LEAST a prima facie case for looking at this character again.

c) he could have secreted the knife in a pocket - as no one searched him, we cannot know.

d) bloodstains might well not have shown up on a dark jacket and in the lighting conditions. As someone said earlier, I think, he had a ready excuse for ny clothing stains - he had touched the body!

e) on brazening his way out - maybe he was that sort of man, a relatively quick thinker. He may have had nerves and hidden any agitation by saying he was late for work - I cannot say (that's all supposition) but I don't see the argument as a "showstopper".

Supe (I simply take your comments as an example):

He is on his way to work, finds a woman on the street, probably dead, does not particularly want to get involved, but does his duty and tells a policeman as he continues on to work. That morning he had no idea anyone would ever remember either him or the victim more than 12 decades later so it is reasonable to expect he saw no need to establish an alibi simply because he found a body. His actions seem quite straightforward to me.

I absolutely agree - but there is not a word in what you wrote, it seems to me, that would rule him out of a modern police investigation.
Jeff,

Moreover, he may not have been especially observant because, as suggested previously, he wanted to get on to work and he had (almost assuredly) no idea he was first on the scene to a Ripper murder.

Maybe true but I don't see its relevance - is our purpose here to exhonerate people and quash ideas without analysis and deeper discussion?

Grave Maurice

If we start accusing everyone who happened to be in the area of a murder, our list of suspects is going to jump from 100+ to several thousands. Suspicion of guilt must involve more than proximity and odd behaviour. I'd behave oddly too if I found a body on my way to work.

But Lechmere was found STANDING OVER a newly killed woman. That is UNIQUE in the whole Ripper case. No one else was seen running away. No one else was near until Paul came along.

I share your reluctance at introducing a new name to the debate, but I do think Lechmere is worth more attention.

Please keep thinking about this. I am grateful to all who have responded to my post so far - sorry if I haven't responded in detail or mentioned all contributions.

Phil

[belinda]

You're right it is suspicious that he was found standing over the body but that doesn't make him guilty.

There is no mention of his hands being covered in blood or that he had any blood on him.

The police must have considered him at the time surely?

[Phil H]

belinda

The police must have considered him at the time surely?

Where is the evidence they ever did?

It seems really to have been with Chapman's death that the police began to take the cases seriously. Lechmere/Cross's testimony at the inquest was - as I have suggested above - apparently much less testing that Richardson's later appearance (Chapman inquest) and he had not seen anything!

By the wy, as Lechmere appeared as Cross at the inquest, did he break the law? Is it OK to use a false name at an inquest?

On guilt, I have not expressed a view, but I repeat, he was the only man FOUND STANDING OVER A NEWLY DEAD VICTIM.

If Bowyer had looked through the window and found a man standing over Kelly's bed - would we simply say that there was no proof he was the killer? Even if he had no bloodstains - other than what he might have picked up from simply being where he was - and no obvious weapon, would we simply accept that "he just came along and found the body"? What would we now say if the police had accepted that statement and done no more?

If the police had found the nightwatchman from Kearley and Tongue's standing over Eddowes disembowelled corpse, would they just have accepted that he walked out of his wharehouse and found her?

There is no proof that Joe Barnett might have killed MJK, but his testimony has been scrutinised in detail. He had an alibi and was not even at the scene, but he was interviewed!

So why are some of apparently so content just to let Lechmere/Cross drop out of the discussion?

No - I don't think he was guilty. No, I don't think we can ever prove anything either way. Yet columns of posts have discussed Hutchinson for whom much of the same was true. Why does Lechmere not warrant, or get, the same treatment?

Phil

[belinda]

It was a question. I don't have an answer. I wasn't stating it as a fact

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,

Neil makes a perfectly good point about the level of lighting. To that I would add that we have absolutely no idea of the level of visual acuity Cross possessed, other than as a carman he probably was not blind. Indeed, in a society like the East End recourse to artificial visual enhancement was likely not great. Enough is not made of this, I fear, when weighing the statements of supposed witnesses.

Moreover, he may not have been especially observant because, as suggested previously, he wanted to get on to work and he had (almost assuredly) no idea he was first on the scene to a Ripper murder.

Don.

Good Morning Don

Yes Neil usually makes very good points on such matters. The fact is I just dont know how much illumination a Victorian gas lamp (and they look big to me) powered by coal gas would have given. Are there any surviving examples?

And Neil makes another good point. How many cases of murders finding the body and calling someone over to help do we know?

I cant think of any other examples?

However there are known serial killers that work in pairs. They are rare but they do exist...a set of radom shootings in america not to mention the Wests.

And its not just the pesky street lamp.

Emma Smith: Attack by a gang. Similar to other victims. Walter Drew believed her a ripper victim. Known attack dead centre of jacks kill zone.

Martha Tabram. Two seperate knives were used to kill her.

Poly Nichols. Harriot Lilly claimed she heard moans and gasps followed by whispering.

Elizebeth Stride: Ignore the Star report version, and it's only possible to conclude she was attacked by two men.

Mary Jane Kelly: witness observes man standing opposite entrance to Millers Court (presumed to be Hutchinson)

OK, its only a nagging thought in the back of my head, personally I'm a lone serial killer man....

But are two attackers out of the realm of possibility?

Not that I know of any connection between Cross and Paul but its not impossible.

Yours Pirate

PS Trust all is well your side of the pond

[lynn cates]

sequence

Hello Phil. You have made some good points. I'd like to discuss one of them: Cross standing over the body of Nichols.

That he did so is patent. Moreover, he may have hidden any knife he was carrying. But I wonder whether, in a typical sequence of events, such a slayer, after secreting the weapon, would not retreat rather than remaining stationary?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hello

Robert Paul, who was walking in the same direction, 40 yards behind Cross, testified that Cross was in the middle of the road when he first noticed him (as Cross himself testified).

Cross then walked back towards the approaching Paul and put his hand on his shoulder. The actions of a man with bloodied hands ?!

Regards
Jon

[Phil H]

I wonder whether, in a typical sequence of events, such a slayer, after secreting the weapon, would not retreat rather than remaining stationary?

You may well be right. Lechmere/Cross may have been entirely innocent, and I am mis-reading/mis-interpreting his actions. But let's for argument's sake assume for a moment that he had killed Polly.

He is about to start to mutilate her abdomen when he hears footsteps from the Brady St end of Buck's Row. What are his options?

If he runs, the newcomer might see him. There could be chase? And if he runs past the School, might he not run straight into the arms of the beat policeman?

After all, if Lechmere always used this route to work he might well have had some idea of the timings of the beat - where coppers would be and when.

So he decides to brazen it out. Perhaps he is on nodding terms with the local bobbies on their beats. (I was brought up in the 50s always to say "Good evening, constable," if one passed a policeman checking doors on his rounds.) Maybe Lechmere relied on this "passing" acquaintance to help him - they would know he always walked to work that way, would they?

Entirely speculative, but not, I think, impossible or inconceivable.

On the point about two murderers:

Didn't one of the residents in Buck's Row (was it Harriot Lilly whom Pirate mentions?) say she heard whispered voices. I had always assumed this was a mistaken appreciation of hearing Lechmere/Cross and Paul meeting over the body - but what if they WERE in cahoots?

I don't build anything on this at all - but I still don't see any convincing reason to dismiss Lechmere. We have no stated alibis, no corroborative evidence (other than from Paul and the police), nothing in the way of a description or anything about him except that derived from census and other records which shows that he gave a false name!

Phil