POLLY NICHOLS: some questions

[lynn cates]

options

Hello Phil.

"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?"

One option might be to keep going (whether he were over the body OR in the street) and call back over his shoulder to Paul, "Say, mate, better 'ave a look. I think that lady's dead. I can't stop--late for work you know." He could repeat that line should he bump into a PC.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Just to clarify,

Cross was not found over Nichols. As Jon rightly points out, he was first seen away from the body.

The best example of gas lighting around today, in that area, is Dennis Severs house in Folgate Street. However it must be stressed that this is a mock lamp, which burns more efficiently than the poorly maintained board of works lamps which would have existed in Bucks Row.

Monty

[lynn cates]

DT

Hello Neil. I checked the DT's version of the inquest and you are right. The snippet under witnesses has Cross/Lechmere going over to her for "closer inspection" and THEN calling to Paul.

The DT report ought to trump the other piece.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to clarify,


The best example of gas lighting around today, in that area, is Dennis Severs house in Folgate Street. However it must be stressed that this is a mock lamp, which burns more efficiently than the poorly maintained board of works lamps which would have existed in Bucks Row.

Monty

Perhaps a stop off for the next London job?

Pirate

[Phil H]

Cross was not found over Nichols. As Jon rightly points out, he was first seen away from the body.

The snippet under witnesses has Cross/Lechmere going over to her for "closer inspection" and THEN calling to Paul.

I don't disagree at all. I would just point out that he was still encountered closer to the newly killed corpse of a "Ripper" victim than anyone else!

Also we are dealing with such slender details here, so much depends on what was seen and how it was perceived, then given in evidence.

It is the overall picture presented that interests me at this stage. though I don't deny that the devil is likely to be in the detail.

Phil

[The Bounder]

Hi Phil,

So let me get this straight.

Cross kills Nichols.

Cross then hears Paul approaching and hides in the shadows.

Cross then calls Paul over to the body.

Cross states to Paul he believes the woman to be dead, he himself.

Paul states he detects life.

They both go and notify a Policeman together.


Do you see where I'm going?

Monty

Ah, but possibly it was all a brilliant ruse from a guilty party who was convinced he was about to be discovered so preempted his own discovery and deflected blame by involving the police!

[Phil H]

Discussion seems to have centred on the "should Lechmere be more of a suspect" question, and I hope this will continue.

But I asked 2 questions in the OP - the first was whether the A-Z had got it wrong in relation to Emily Holland's testimony. Any thoughts on that?

Phil

[Sally]

Charles Allen Lechmere

Discussion seems to have centred on the "should Lechmere be more of a suspect" question, and I hope this will continue.

With the present discussion in mind, I had a quick look about for the mysterious Charles Cross - this is a brief account so as not to bore you all with endless genealogical details!:

Charles Allen Lechmere

Was born in about 1850 in the parish of St Anne, Soho. He was the second child of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa Lechmere (nee. Roulson); both of whom appear to have originated from the Hereford area. They married in 1846 (BMD Hereford v26 p339). Maria Lechmere appeared in the 1851 Census on her own with Charles and sister Emily (b.1847) at 78 Blue School Lane, Hereford, working as a Straw Bonnet Maker. Although she is listed as married, it is unclear whether her husband had deserted her, or had died.

Whatever the case, Maria’s was evidently able to enter into a second marriage, to Thomas Cross (b.1825) early in 1858. The Cross family were living at 13 Thomas Street, St George in the East in 1861; Thomas Cross is listed as a police constable and Charles, and his sister Emily, are both listed with the surname Cross at this time.

At some point between 1861 and 1872; Thomas Cross died; because in 1872, Maria married for a third time, to widower Joseph Forsdike. Her son Charles, by this time married himself, was a witness to the marriage.

What is interesting, is this:

On this occasion; and also on his own marriage certificate, and in the 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1911 census (I haven‘t located him in the 1901 census); Charles ‘Cross’ used the name Lechmere. It is Lechmere, not Cross that appears on his death certificate. In fact, Lechmere appears to have been his ‘usual’ name - Cross something of an anomaly.

It is not surprising, therefore, that he initially gave the name Lechmere to the police subsequent to witnessing the corpse of Mary Ann Nichols. Lechmere was not a false name - it was his name, about which there appears to have been no mystery or doubt at the time.

So why did he use the name Cross? Evidently he had taken the name when his mother married Thomas Cross in 1858; exactly why he did so again 30 years later is open to speculation. Evidently he revised his initial decision to use the name Lechmere on that occasion. Perhaps he was also known as Cross. Another possibility is that he wanted to shield his family from any publicity at the time. In 1888, he and his wife Elizabeth, who married in 1870, had 6 children at home. It is also apparent that he had relatives living in London. It would be quite understandable if he wanted to protect the privacy of his family.

In any event, Charles Cross did not lie to the police about his name - one less reason for suspicion?

Oh yes, additionally - in 1891 Charles Lechmere and his family were living at 22 Doveton Street, Mile End. Charles was still working as a carman. He was not, therefore, the Charles Crass living in the Victoria Home identified by Michael Connor in his dissertation.

[Monty]

Cross was not found over Nichols. As Jon rightly points out, he was first seen away from the body.

The snippet under witnesses has Cross/Lechmere going over to her for "closer inspection" and THEN calling to Paul.

I don't disagree at all. I would just point out that he was still encountered closer to the newly killed corpse of a "Ripper" victim than anyone else!

Also we are dealing with such slender details here, so much depends on what was seen and how it was perceived, then given in evidence.

It is the overall picture presented that interests me at this stage. though I don't deny that the devil is likely to be in the detail.

Phil

The same arguement can therefore be made for Davis, Diemshutz (or Diemshitz Thomas), Watkins, Bowyer, Thomps etc etc etc.

Monty

[The Grave Maurice]

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

Very astute point, Donald, and one that I don't recall having been made before: you never hear of anyone in the East End, at the relevant time, wearing glasses. Personally, without mine, I couldn't have seen clearly for any distance after I was about 25.

Well spotted, so to speak.

[Supe]

Grave One,

Very astute point, Donald, and one that I don't recall having been made before

Thank you very much for the comment. Though, to be honest, I first made the point in an article, "Last Seen Wearing," that appeared in Ripper Notes 23 (July 2005). In fact, that article is truly distinguished because it is graced with a series of original illustrations by Glenn Andersson that he kindly provided.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

... I don't recall having been made before: you never hear of anyone in the East End, at the relevant time, wearing glasses....

Hello GM,

It also brings into question the vision of the police officers on the beat at the time in identifying others correctly. Although desk/office duty policemen are known to have worn glasses, have you ever seen an East End policeman on the beat outside wearing glasses? There were no eyetests, I believe, at the time? Although sight is ok in the daytime without glasses, if the vision is at all impaired, then at night it becomes decidedly more difficult to be precise, especially given the gloom of the East End streets.

best wishes

Phil

[The Grave Maurice]

...I first made the point in an article, "Last Seen Wearing," that appeared in Ripper Notes 23 (July 2005).

Don,

Actually, now that you mention it, I own the issue and read the article. Unfortunately, my eyesight isn't the only thing that's going.

Phil,

You're right: the point applies equally to the cops.

[Jeff Leahy]

True. But quite a few of the witnesses weren't that old.

Schwartz was only 22.

I'd be surprised if the average age made 25....

Pirate

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

Age isn't the question here. Eyesight is.. witnesses or policemen. I would doubt that of the witnesses and policemen to happenings, people they have seen, suspects etc all mentioned in this... that ALL of them had perfect eyesight. In relative gloomy light/darkness/consequence of light rain/rain. That combination raises the question of the ability of any one of these people, policemen included, to have actually seen anything as described.. colours in the dark included (there are also people who are colour blind in this world), those who cannot distinguish shading very well, those who see far better in daylight than darkness, and most of these things happened in a relatively short space of time, not to mention vastly differing distances in some cases. This combination therefore must bring into question veracity, without us knowing, of the testimony based on vision alone.
All this is before we start to look at impaired hearing.

All this must be taken into account. What weight is put upon it, is speculatory however. I can only conclude that a question can be raised by these factors. We do not know for certain any impediment, but cannot assume there weren't any either. We can generalise on the average amount of people having less than perfect eyesight in Victorian times. Poverty would also be a factor, of who could afford glasses. Were policemen allowed to wear spectacles on duty outside on their beat? Age, as you mention may take a part in this, but in consideration, poor eyesight can start at a young age. Look how many children are short-sighted at school and wear glasses and contact lenses.

This is merely observing a problem. I make no statement about it as being factual either way.

best wishes

Phil