Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

I have to agree with Fish here. I wrote a study of the Nichols murder years ago (it's called 'Old Wounds' and is in the Dissertations section), and I came away from my research with the impression that both Cross and Paul touched the body. In fact, I would argue that the slight movement Paul wishfully thought was Nichols breathing was actually Cross slightly jarring the body.

Regarding what Garry and Fish are discussing, I have mixed feelings. Garry is absolutely correct in that it appears Fish has changed his longstanding beliefs on Stride (which used to be a major point of contention between he and myself), based solely on the fact that his new suspect's mum lived near Berner Street. This does seem disingenuous. However, we've all changed our minds on various aspects of the case and for various reasons, so why should Fish be an exception? If the study of his new suspect opened his mind to interpretations of the evidence that he'd been close-minded to before, then all the better.

But also, I was shocked to see Fish suggesting Garry should be banned. For what? Staying on topic in a thread and discussing the evidence? Granted, such behavior may no longer be the norm, but surely it's not an Admin issue? The reality Fish is that you're now in 'suspect theory' territory, which means you need to toughen up and prepare to have your character assassinated. You're getting off easy so far. Oh, by all means defend yourself and give as good as you get, but I think when you start threatening to go tell mommy you've rather lost the battle and are behaving like a wuss. So I say don't go there.

Also, some advice. It's difficult if not impossible to discuss a theory before you've published it. That's why I avoid any indepth discussions about Le Grand. I'll let the book I'm writing speak for itself. You should consider ceasing all discussion on this until your essay is published and we've had a chance to read it. Then discuss it ONLY with those who have read your essay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom:

" Garry is absolutely correct in that it appears Fish has changed his longstanding beliefs on Stride (which used to be a major point of contention between he and myself), based solely on the fact that his new suspect's mum lived near Berner Street."

Exactly WHAT is it I have changed, Tom? I fail to see that, so explain ti to me!

" I was shocked to see Fish suggesting Garry should be banned."

So am I -since I never said that. Garry told me thart since I´ve bbeen banned twice, I am in no position to teach him manners (he may have a point there), and I answered that if he thought that staying away from being banned was important to him, he may need to stay away from slandering me.

" you're now in 'suspect theory' territory, which means you need to toughen up and prepare to have your character assassinated."

Fine by me _ I just don´t see how I could receive any MORE character assasination than I already have. Claining that Hutch is not a bright idea is quite enough to achieve that

" It's difficult if not impossible to discuss a theory before you've published it. That's why I avoid any indepth discussions about Le Grand. I'll let the book I'm writing speak for itself. You should consider ceasing all discussion on this until your essay is published and we've had a chance to read it."

That´s perhaps not a bad idea. I´ll think about it...

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

If you read the various accounts then it is unsustainable to try and claim that Cross did not touch the body. Adopting that line of argument to argue against Cross is barely worth commenting back on.

The argument against Fisherman over the possible reason why he may have changed his view on Stride is equally puerile. His or anyone else’s motivation for putting forward a proposition is of rather less interest than debating the nature of the proposition itself.

I will quickly address the issue of a man killing on his way to work.
If Cross was the Ripper, then when would he have been able to commit the crimes?
During most of the daylight hours, apart presumably from on his Sunday day off, he would have been at work. Except for maybe in the first few hours of his working day when the streets would have been more empty and even then only of he had a delivery to a suitable location. He may have had opportunity to park up his wagon and commit a crime earlyish in the day. Otherwise the streets would have been too busy for him to escape notice. This obviously goes for whoever did it and is undoubtedly the reason why the crimes took place when it was dark and quiet.
As Cross was an early starter we must presume he did not work that late each day and came home at the latest in the early evening, possibly late afternoon, when again it would be too busy for him to commit the crimes and again this pretty much goes for whoever did it.
From say 10 pm at the latest to 3 am or so he would tend to be asleep. Maybe he could slip out on occasion but in general that would not be a time when he could roam the streets as his wife would miss him. At weekends, before his day off it is plausible that he may stay out longer but not on other nights as a rule.
So if he was a homicidal maniac, a murderous psychopath, at what time of the day would he have had opportunity to commit his crimes? The only realistic time would have been on his way to work. For those who say loftily ‘oh no one would do these crimes on their way to work’ then firstly I rather hope they are not people with the inner compulsion to commit such crimes and so do not need to find a suitable time slot in which to do them. For a man such as Cross that was the only available time slot so if he had such a compulsion the choice was made for him.
It is as simple as that and all arguments that go along the lines of ‘he wouldn’t do it on his way to work’ are frankly ridiculous if the case is given any sort of sensible thought.
The timings of all the crimes fit what we know of Cross's movements or what we can reasonably guess would have been his movements.
And yes conjecture is involved here - please don't try and loftily say conjecture, conjecture, conjecture as conjecture surrounds all aspects of Ripper suspectology. That is a given.

Tom
I know you want to hold off on Le Grand and I know this is off topic – but did you reply to my earlier query as to whether there was any actual evidence that Le Grand was specifically in the Crown on the night of the Stride murder and if so the time he left? You may have answered and I may have missed it in the maelstrom of debate on Cross.
It is quite understandable that you wish to hold off on debating Le Grand. The recent Cross threads should be a lesson to everyone on that issue. You end up with bitty arguments instead of being able to present a case in the round with all the loose ends answered to make a coherent whole. That is why I have avoided getting too drawn into these threads although it is obviously too tempting sometimes.

[Sally]

If you read the various accounts then it is unsustainable to try and claim that Cross did not touch the body. Adopting that line of argument to argue against Cross is barely worth commenting back on.

You are quite correct, Lechers. As you must surely know, he himself told the inquest that he had felt her hands; as Paul told the inquest he had felt both hands and face.

I don't see, however, that any more than that can be claimed on the basis of existing evidence - do you?

[Fisherman]

SAlly:

" he himself told the inquest that he had felt her hands"

No, Sally, that is the one way NO paper reports it, I think. They say EITHER hand (singularis) OR hands (pluralis) AND face.

Let´s keep it as correct as we can!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

SAlly:

" he himself told the inquest that he had felt her hands"

No, Sally, that is the one way NO paper reports it, I think. They say EITHER hand (singularis) OR hands (pluralis) AND face.

Let´s keep it as correct as we can!

The best,
Fisherman

Keep it correct? Yes, let's -

'Witness, having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold'

The Times 4th September 1888 (Inquest; reported testimony of Charles Cross)

Nothing is reported regarding Cross having touched the face.

The Times 18th September 1888 (resumed inquest, reported testimony of Robert Paul)

'Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold'

According to the inquest testimony, Cross felt the hands and Paul felt the hands and face. Check it for yourself Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"According to the inquest testimony, Cross felt the hands and Paul felt the hands and face. Check it for yourself Fisherman."

I HAVE checked it - that is how I got in a position to correct you.

If you take the trouble to read the quote you just posted yourself, you will see that it presents one of the two variants I told you you would find - if you looked for them. And just like I said, the Times uses the variant where it says that just the ONE hand was felt. This, as you may notice, is in exact keeping with what I stated in my earlier post:
"They say EITHER hand (singularis) OR hands (pluralis) AND face."

...and how many hands can we count to in the Times version. Let´s see here now, hmmm ... AH! One!

Now, if you had taken the trouble to look at the earlier posts, you would ALSO have found post 270, in which I quote papers that were more informative and took the trouble to write down ALL Lechmere said:

"Daily Telegraph:

”They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm.”

Daily News:

”They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm.”

The Echo:

”We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm.”

By now, I trust you will see what I mean: No single paper stated that Cross felt the hands only. Some say he felt ONE hand only, some say he felt BOTH hands AND the face, and one says he felt ONE hand AND the face.

The only version that never comes into play is the one suggested by you. After which YOU tell ME to check for myself ...?

I very much suspect this is the kind of useless quibble Lechmere - the poster - speaks about in his last post, by the way.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sally – Take a Look at these inquest reports and make your own mind up as to whether Cross touched more than her hand

Daily News
(Cross as the witness)
the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm.
(Paul as the witness)
He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing.

Daily Telegraph
(Cross as the witness)
witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm.

East London Observer
(Cross as the witness)
the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stooped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead."

Eastern Argus & Borough of Hackney Times.
(Cross as the witness)
I took hold of the hands of the woman, and the other man stooped over her head to look at her. Feeling the hands cold and limp, I said "I believe she's dead;" her face felt warm.

Echo
(Cross as the witness)
He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead."

Evening Standard and also Morning Advertiser
(Cross as the witness)
I bent over her head, and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead."

Illustrated Police News
(Cross as the witness)
Witness took hold of the hands of the woman, and the other man stooped over her head to look at her. Feeling the hands cold and limp witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm.

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper
(Cross as the witness)
and the witness then took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm.

The Star
(Cross as the witness)
They both went to the body and stooped beside it. Witness took the woman's hand, and finding it cold said, "I believe she's dead."

The Times
(Cross as the witness)
Witness, having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead."

In Cross’s evidence he always says to Paul – at least initially - that he believed Polly to be dead. In contrast he says that Paul thinks she was alive. In Paul’s initial press interview he claim he knew she was dead. They also clearly did not alert Mizen to the fact that she was definitely dead – they were vague as to her condition.
I think that Cross took advantage of Paul’s absence from the inquest to put himself in the clear – claiming he thought Polly was dead.
I think the manner in which Cross approached Paul with involved a strange pirouette around the pavement and a touch on the shoulder put Cross in a position of dominance over Paul. I think Cross thought fast and manipulated Paul into touching the body while he also did this, so that any blood transfers could be explained if they were stopped. But he didn’t want her to touch {Polly too much and he refused to help prop her up. He took a risk that Paul wouldn’t for example slap her face to wake her up, but he was a risk taker anyway and I think a good judge of character – as many psychopaths are.

Yes Fisherman - the trouble is many people who attack this thesis do so without carefully reading the sourfec material first and this derails the debate.

[Sally]

Oh Dear...

I'm wasting my time here, aren't I?

I think I'm off to join the silent majority.

[Garry Wroe]

"I have neither implied nor stated explicitly that you ‘withhold material’. I asserted that you disregard information that fails to accord with your preconceived thinking. Disregard, as in discount, dismiss, ignore, neglect or reject."

But that is just as wrong. I have not neglected to mention any material that does not accord with "my preconceived thinking".

Tell me, Fisherman, are you being deliberately obtuse? I did not state that you ‘neglected to mention’ anything. The word I used was ‘disregard’.

We HAVE good sources that corroborate each other, all saying that Lechmere felt her hands and her face, finding the latter warm.

If you’d care to actually read my previous posts you’ll discover that I attributed little importance to the issue of whether or not Cross touched Nichols’ face. The fundamental point I made was that Cross had no idea whether a policeman might happen on the scene at any moment. Thus, if he really was the cold-blooded and calculating killer you would have us believe, it seems reasonable to suppose that he would have been happy to touch the body in Paul’s presence in order to explain away any bloodstaining to his hands and clothing. But no. Rather than cover his tracks by way of a simple subterfuge, Cross was emphatic in his refusal to touch the body.

And your counterargument? That Cross could account for any bloodstaining to his person by explaining that he had touched Nichols’ hands and face. The fact that there isn’t an atom of evidence to suggest that Nichols’ hands and face incurred any bloodstaining perhaps best explains your present preoccupation with irrelevant arguments about which newspaper said what. It’s prolix. Pure and simple.

[The Good Michael]

I guess I'm not following the argument here. If a person thought there was a chance a victim of some accident or drunken mishap might still be alive, he/she would probably feel for a pulse and/or feel the face or forehead. I don't know how that makes a person a suspect, though I do follow Fish' arguments that at least he was there and had access to the victim, but the touching of someone makes a lot of sense if one thinks a person many be alive.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Tell me, Fisherman, are you being deliberately obtuse? I did not state that you ‘neglected to mention’ anything. The word I used was ‘disregard’."

Tell ME Garry, if you suddenly believe that there was no evil intention in my "disregarding" to mention the less full paper reports ...?

"If you’d care to actually read my previous posts ..."

I HAVE read your previous posts. Thoroughly.

" ...you’ll discover that I attributed little importance to the issue of whether or not Cross touched Nichols’ face."

That was very well hidden, if this was the case. But if you say so, then I am willing to buy it.

"The fundamental point I made was that Cross had no idea whether a policeman might happen on the scene at any moment."

And that may well be fundamentally wrong, Garry - for here, you are working from the notion that Charles Lechmere was just an innocent carman on his way to work. If he instead was a premeditating killer, then the PC beat would arguably have been of interest to him, right?

"Thus, if he really was the cold-blooded and calculating killer you would have us believe, it seems reasonable to suppose that he would have been happy to touch the body in Paul’s presence in order to explain away any bloodstaining to his hands and clothing..."

But he DID just that, according to a good many papers, Garry! And I have explained, over and over again, that I am of the meaning that he would NOT want it to become clear that Nichol´s had been killed, since that could earn him the odd PC on spot, alerted to the place by Paul calling out, for example.

"But no. Rather than cover his tracks by way of a simple subterfuge, Cross was emphatic in his refusal to touch the body."

The tracks WERE already effectively covered - Paul bought his story, and Lechmere took great care to make sure that Paul went with him as he touched the body. He ALREADY had reason to say "Whoa, mr PC - that blood on my hand and cuff must have ended up there as me and my pal here examined the lady. Right, companion?" And Paul would have corroborated that the two HAD examined the body in the darkness in Buck´s Row.

It was the IDEAL outcome as far as Lechmere was concerned, if he was the killer - he found a man to walk with, giving him the air of being in company walking to job (which Mizen bought - he thought they were working companions, remember), he made sure that he would be able to explain the blood (if there was any) and - not least - he left the body in Buck´s Row in a very casual manner, something he could NOT have done if it had been revealed that Nichols was a murder victim.

There are only so many ways I can explain this, Garry. If you don´t understand what I am saying, then there is very little I can do about it. But surely you can see that the method he chose was a very "economical" one, involving little commotion, no police panic, no nothing, just a leisurely stroll down Hanbury Street while it dawned on the police that they had a very serious case on their hands, Mizen thinking it was a good thing the responsible carmen alerted him to it, and Neil and Thain being none the wiser about their very existence until much later in the process.

Here I end my exchange with you over this matter, Garry. I have nothing more to add, and I have made my stance quite clear, I should hope.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom
I know you want to hold off on Le Grand and I know this is off topic – but did you reply to my earlier query as to whether there was any actual evidence that Le Grand was specifically in the Crown on the night of the Stride murder and if so the time he left? You may have answered and I may have missed it in the maelstrom of debate on Cross.
It is quite understandable that you wish to hold off on debating Le Grand. The recent Cross threads should be a lesson to everyone on that issue. You end up with bitty arguments instead of being able to present a case in the round with all the loose ends answered to make a coherent whole. That is why I have avoided getting too drawn into these threads although it is obviously too tempting sometimes.

Hi Lech, my apologies. I did not notice your previous question to me. The short answer is, no, I do not have a sworn affidavit to Le Grand having been at the crown in the hour or so before Stride's death. The facts I DO have are that the vigilance committee met at the Crown and had to leave the premises before 1am, with them typically leaving between midnight and 12:30am, and we know that Le Grand 'led the troops' so to speak, as that was his job with the VC. And no, I do not know the date that Le Grand was hired by the VC, but I DO know that only two days after the murder, a private detective applied for hire and was turned away on the grounds that they had already had three working for them. As you know, the police report described Le Grand as 'working jointly with the press and vigilance committee', so unless Le Grand and Batchelor applied for the job, were approved and hired all within a few hours from when the murders committed, then they were already on the job the night of the murder, and would have been at the Crown at midnight, heading out by 12:30am. I apologize for the rambling post, but I'm getting ready for work while I write this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

"Thus, if he really was the cold-blooded and calculating killer you would have us believe, it seems reasonable to suppose that he would have been happy to touch the body in Paul’s presence in order to explain away any bloodstaining to his hands and clothing..."

But he DID just that, according to a good many papers, Garry!

He touched one hand, Fisherman, possibly two, and possibly the face – areas of the body which Cross would have known were not heavily bloodstained had he been the killer. The major injuries sustained by Nichols were inflicted to her neck and trunk. Thus Cross’s refusal to ‘shift’ the body and thereby come into direct contact with the major injury areas is sufficient to demolish your contention that he touched the body in order to explain away any bloodstaining to his hands or clothing.

And I have explained, over and over again, that I am of the meaning that he would NOT want it to become clear that Nichol´s had been killed, since that could earn him the odd PC on spot, alerted to the place by Paul calling out, for example.

Then why did Cross state his belief that the woman was dead? Why, if he didn’t wish to spook Paul, did he not concur with Paul’s assumption that the woman was merely unconscious?

He ALREADY had reason to say "Whoa, mr PC - that blood on my hand and cuff must have ended up there as me and my pal here examined the lady. Right, companion?" And Paul would have corroborated that the two HAD examined the body in the darkness in Buck´s Row.

No. Paul would have stated that Cross had emphatically refused to touch the body.

There are only so many ways I can explain this, Garry.

Yes, Fisherman. But none of them are consistent with the known evidence. And that is what I mean when I say that you disregard those facts which fail to accord with your hypothesis and overinflate those which seemingly do. What’s more, sadosexual serialists do not waylay, throttle, kill and mutilate victims just minutes before they are due to clock on at work. That’s the stuff of cheap detective novels – or staggeringly ill-conceived Ripper theories.

[Lechmere]

Mike - the point of discussing the touching (along with all other aspects if Cross's involvement) is to deconstruct what we know and see if a more sinister interpretation can be put on things and whether these sinister reinterpretations hold water and add up to a case against Cross. In my opinion they do. In my opinion when everything about Cross is weighed up and put together then it makes for a more compelling case than can be made against any other suspect.

Tom
It is a perfectly reasonable supposition to place Le Grand at the Crown that night. More difficult to place him at Berner Street, but I will have to await your full thesis to see how he can fit into the rest of the case.
But by the same token I think it is a reasonable supposition to put Cross to within a few score yards of Berner Street on the night in question. Also within a few score yards of the Tabram, Mckenzie and Chapman murders. Although what we know if Cross's background makes him a possible 'type' who becomes a serial killer, there is no known propensity to violence - unlike Le Grand of course. Although there is the question as to whether serial killers often exhibit general patterns of premeditated criminal violence - I know some do.