Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Bridewell]

"Re: acoustics. If Cross didn`t notice/hear Paul until he was forty yards or so from him then that must have been the acoustic distance for footsteps that night."

Nope - Neil HEARD Thain passing up at Brady Street as he was examining Nichols, meaning that the accoustic distance for footsteps was AT LEAST 110 yards. Context is everything, Jon!

Context is, indeed, everything. The murder was committed almost directly above a railway line, so the "acoustic distance" would be greatly influenced by the presence, or absence, of a passing train.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"Okay... there was no lamp opposite in 1888. I suggested that only to see if you knew the layout of Bucks Row in 1888. ;-)"

Nice try, Jon! And the layout DID allow for three lamps, I believe - but there was only the one lamp working on the night.

"Re: acoustics. If Cross didn`t notice/hear Paul until he was forty yards or so from him then that must have been the acoustic distance for footsteps that night."

Nope - Neil HEARD Thain passing up at Brady Street as he was examining Nichols, meaning that the accoustic distance for footsteps was AT LEAST 110 yards. Context is everything, Jon!

"You have to remember that Cross wasn`t a keen eyed Swede like yourself, but a dopey Englishman like me, who would have stood for a while scratching his nuts and squinting at the shape on the pavement on other side of the road before deciding that he could be arsed to investigate."

Wrong again, I think, Jon - but this time you have to rely on me. My assessment is that Lechmere was anything but dopey. Quite the contrary, in fact. By the appearance of things, he was lightning quick in his thought processes, and usefully intelligent.
Now, I do wish I could substantiate this in this post of mine, but it is going to have to wait some time. But I will go public with it all before not too long, if everything works out the way I hope.

"He does state that he was unsure what it was, and Paul testified that he saw Cross standing in the middle of the road."

He does. Well, when Paul arrived, the uncertainty was gone, for at that stage he knew it was a woman. The picture he gives is that he walked on the north side of the street, discerned a bundle on the south side, and, thinking it was a tarpaulin, he stepped closer, only to make out that it was a woman.

Don´t believe him, Jon ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Steven Russell:

"you believe you have heroically vanquished my objections to Cross's candidacy."

No.

"Can you not see that your case is gossamer thin?"

No.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Okay... there was no lamp opposite in 1888. I suggested that only to see if you knew the layout of Bucks Row in 1888. ;-)

Re: acoustics. If Cross didn`t notice/hear Paul until he was forty yards or so from him then that must have been the acoustic distance for footsteps that night.

You have to remember that Cross wasn`t a keen eyed Swede like yourself, but a dopey Englishman like me, who would have stood for a while scratching his nuts and squinting at the shape on the pavement on other side of the road before deciding that he could be arsed to investigate. He does state that he was unsure what it was, and Paul testified that he saw Cross standing in the middle of the road.

[Steven Russell]

Steven Russell:

"So successfully in fact that he appeared at the inquest and fully described his role in finding the body."

Stephen, the wording in the post you answered said that " Cross seems to have successfully obscured his role in finding' Polly's body all on his own", and of course - just like you point out - we know that Lechmere testified at the inquest to having been alone as he spotted his "tarpaulin" and took a few steps towards it, seeing that was a woman. So as far as these few seconds are concerned, yes Lechmere DID say that he was first.

But if he was the killer, and if he had spent five or ten minutes on the spot, killing Nichols and cutting her up, then we need to realize that there was no way that he could ever get away with stating that he and Paul have arrived simultaneously. If he was the killer, the best he could do, was to create the impression that the two men arrived ALMOST simultaneously, so simultaneously, in fact, that any suspicion that he had had a lengthy time period alone with Nichols was erased. He needed to minimize the perceived time gap, quite simply. And to do that, he would have to step back from Nichols´body, and silently walk three steps out into the middle of Buck´s Row in the darkness, before Paul saw him. The street rested in more or less complete darkness, remember, the only lamp lit being positioned up at the intersection with Brady Street, meaning that Lechmere could probably both hear and see Paul as he entered the street, giving himself ample time to abort the strike and get in position in the middle of the street, whereas Paul walked into dense darkness. He seems not to have noticed Lechmere until he was a few yards away from him.

And so Lechmere creates the impression that he has only just stoppedhimself on seeing the woman on the pavement, and that he has not yet approached her, meaning that he has stood there for the fewest of seconds when Paul arrived.

Now, the distance from the corner or Brady Street down to where Polly lay, was more than a hundred yards. The street was totally empty, but for Lechmere and Nichols, as Paul turned into it. It was lined on both sides by houses, accoustically turning it into a tunnel. Anybody standing up at Brady street, would easily have heard if somebody entered the narrow section of the street, down at the Board school, the shoes cloppering against the stone paving.
But Paul does not say that he heard a man walking in front of him, does he? So perhaps Lechmere was standing in the middle of the street for all that time it took Paul to walk the 110-120 years from Brady Street to Browns Stable Yard - half a minute or so?

Do people who find women lying on pavements really do this - stop for half a minute in the middle of the street, looking at the body, waiting, doing nothing?

Lechmere himself says he only heard Paul when he was forty yards off. Why was that? In a silent street? Why did he not hear the hurrying Paul, late for work, doing absolutely nothing to walk silently, instead pacing along as best as he could, already as he entered the street? Neil heard Thain pass the intersection as he stood by Nichols´body, 110-120 yards away, remember!

Strange, is it not? Not really, though, not if Lechmere noticed Paul immediately, aborting his strike and silently stepping into the middle of the street, and if there was nothing to hear for Paul. Then this anomaly is easily explained.

But the police did not catch up on this. They bought the version Lechmere served them, and they bought all of it. In a report, dated 19:th of October 1888, some seven weeks after the murder, Swanson writes ”The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Buck' s Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul carmen, on their way to work.”

And THAT, Steven, is how Lechmere "succesfully obsured his role"! To the police, the discovery of Nichols was a joint effort. The time gap inbetween Lechmere´s find and Pauls arrival was judged totally insignificant. And who provided the substantiation for this? Yes - Charles Allen Lechmere.

All the best,
Fisherman

Judging from your last paragraph (and thanks for spelling my name right there), you believe you have heroically vanquished my objections to Cross's candidacy. Can you not see that your case is gossamer thin? Better than Lewis Carroll, though. I'll give you that.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Fisherman]

From the inquest, as per the Evening Standard:

"Police Constable John Neil said - On Friday morning I was proceeding down Buck's row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previous, and I saw no one then. I was on the right hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row."

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Morning, Jon!

"For a minute there I thought you were suggesting that Cross had time to wipe his hands, secrete his knife and step back a few yards into the middle of the road, none of which Paul saw as he approached, despite the lamp opposite the body."

There was no lamp opposite the body, Jon. If there had been, then I fail to see how the murder could have gone unnoticed by Paul. There was just the one lamp on the narrow section of the street, and that one was close to Brady Street.

"But you are saying that Cross noticed Paul enter Bucks Row and waited patiently for him in the middle of the road for a couple of minutes?"

No. I am saying that Lechmere CLAIMED that he had stopped by the body, noticing that Paul followed suit, forty feet away, whereas in fact, Lechmere should have noticed Paul long before that by the sound of his steps and by the lamp up at Brady Street.
I dont think, in any case, that a hundred yard walk would have taken Paul a couple of minutes, but I do think that the time afforded would have been enough for Lechmere to stash his knife (how long does that take, three seconds?), step out into the street (three seconds more) and perhaps wipe his hands on Nichols´ulster (three or four further seconds, perhaps).

There is nothing at all in the time schedule afforded that takes Lechmere out of the frame. But on the accoustic issue: Why do you think Paul did not hear Lechmere walking in front of him? And why did not Lechmere hear Paul until he was a mere forty yards from him?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

For a minute there I thought you were suggesting that Cross had time to wipe his hands, secrete his knife and step back a few yards into the middle of the road, none of which Paul saw as he approached, despite the lamp opposite the body. But you are saying that Cross noticed Paul enter Bucks Row and waited patiently for him in the middle of the road for a couple of minutes?

[Fisherman]

Steven Russell:

"So successfully in fact that he appeared at the inquest and fully described his role in finding the body."

Stephen, the wording in the post you answered said that " Cross seems to have successfully obscured his role in finding' Polly's body all on his own", and of course - just like you point out - we know that Lechmere testified at the inquest to having been alone as he spotted his "tarpaulin" and took a few steps towards it, seeing that was a woman. So as far as these few seconds are concerned, yes Lechmere DID say that he was first.

But if he was the killer, and if he had spent five or ten minutes on the spot, killing Nichols and cutting her up, then we need to realize that there was no way that he could ever get away with stating that he and Paul have arrived simultaneously. If he was the killer, the best he could do, was to create the impression that the two men arrived ALMOST simultaneously, so simultaneously, in fact, that any suspicion that he had had a lengthy time period alone with Nichols was erased. He needed to minimize the perceived time gap, quite simply. And to do that, he would have to step back from Nichols´body, and silently walk three steps out into the middle of Buck´s Row in the darkness, before Paul saw him. The street rested in more or less complete darkness, remember, the only lamp lit being positioned up at the intersection with Brady Street, meaning that Lechmere could probably both hear and see Paul as he entered the street, giving himself ample time to abort the strike and get in position in the middle of the street, whereas Paul walked into dense darkness. He seems not to have noticed Lechmere until he was a few yards away from him.

And so Lechmere creates the impression that he has only just stoppedhimself on seeing the woman on the pavement, and that he has not yet approached her, meaning that he has stood there for the fewest of seconds when Paul arrived.

Now, the distance from the corner or Brady Street down to where Polly lay, was more than a hundred yards. The street was totally empty, but for Lechmere and Nichols, as Paul turned into it. It was lined on both sides by houses, accoustically turning it into a tunnel. Anybody standing up at Brady street, would easily have heard if somebody entered the narrow section of the street, down at the Board school, the shoes cloppering against the stone paving.
But Paul does not say that he heard a man walking in front of him, does he? So perhaps Lechmere was standing in the middle of the street for all that time it took Paul to walk the 110-120 years from Brady Street to Browns Stable Yard - half a minute or so?

Do people who find women lying on pavements really do this - stop for half a minute in the middle of the street, looking at the body, waiting, doing nothing?

Lechmere himself says he only heard Paul when he was forty yards off. Why was that? In a silent street? Why did he not hear the hurrying Paul, late for work, doing absolutely nothing to walk silently, instead pacing along as best as he could, already as he entered the street? Neil heard Thain pass the intersection as he stood by Nichols´body, 110-120 yards away, remember!

Strange, is it not? Not really, though, not if Lechmere noticed Paul immediately, aborting his strike and silently stepping into the middle of the street, and if there was nothing to hear for Paul. Then this anomaly is easily explained.

But the police did not catch up on this. They bought the version Lechmere served them, and they bought all of it. In a report, dated 19:th of October 1888, some seven weeks after the murder, Swanson writes ”The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Buck' s Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul carmen, on their way to work.”

And THAT, Steven, is how Lechmere "succesfully obsured his role"! To the police, the discovery of Nichols was a joint effort. The time gap inbetween Lechmere´s find and Pauls arrival was judged totally insignificant. And who provided the substantiation for this? Yes - Charles Allen Lechmere.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Steven Russell]

Fleetwood Mac
Indeed Cross seems to have successfully obscured his role in finding' Polly's body all on his own and so avoided any particular police interest.

.

So successfully in fact that he appeared at the inquest and fully described his role in finding the body.

[Lechmere]

Fleetwood Mac
Whenever someone involved in the case had a known alternative name then it was recorded in the police papers. Cross appears - if briefly and somewhat inaccurately - in the police papers with no indication that the police where aware of his real name. No one was aware until a few years ago.
From the treatment Paul received we can also be fairly sure that Cross was not in fact visited at his house.
Indeed Cross seems to have successfully obscured his role in finding' Polly's body all on his own and so avoided any particular police interest.

And why give his genuine Christian names? The skill in lying is to mix fact and fiction and to tell enough to get away with things if need be. Using the name Cross would have given sufficient distance to obscure his personal involvement to his acquaintances. Yet if the police did 'check him out' he could have provided an excuse for using the name. In fact I am pretty sure the police didn't 'check him out' as he did a good job of appearing innocuous, insignificant and respectable.

[curious]

Curious in 1871 Lechmere/Cross and his new wife lived at Mary Ann Street (about 200 yards south of the Berner Street murder scene) with his widowed mother (who in turn was living with a 23 year old 'lodger'). They were all called Lechmere apart from his widowed mother who was called Cross (her second husband Thomas Cross died in 1869).
They were still living at Mary Ann Street in 1876 when one of Lechmere/Cross's children was christened.
By 1881 his mother had moved to Pinchin Street (where she had also lived with her family including young Charles in 1861) and remarried Joseph Forsdike. By this date one of the one of Lechmere/Cross's children was living with his mother and he had moved to James Street.
His mother almost certainly moved out of Mary Ann Street when she remarried in 1872. From Pinchin Street she moved to Cable Street a some point as this is where Joseph Forsdike died in December 1889.
All these streets are within a few hundred yards of each other - and Berner Street.

Thanks Lechmere.

If he had been living with his mother for years, the sudden responsibility might have been a deciding factor, but since he and his family were on their own, it can't be a factor.

And do we know if the last child was a sick baby or died as the result of an accident?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

Whilst nobody has come out full-on and said it, I think the point being made is that there is tacit Casebook recognition of some truly lightweight "suspects" but none for some of the weightier ones...So we have accomodation for storing all the threads regarding Pedachenko, Jill the Ripper, Lewis Carroll and other such rot, but nothing as a central point of reference for more serious persons of interest such as Levy, Issenschmidt and (dare I say it) Charles Cross...

Whilst I would not presume to criticise the site owners for this (it's their site after all, not ours and I'm just grateful it's here!) it does seem a tad anomolous...but perhaps there are technical reasons for not altering the structure anyway?

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

"Give Cross/Lechmere a place as a suspect".

Do we really need a thread to decide on whether Cross/Lechmere should be listed among the Suspects on Casebook?

He's been covered in great detail on the "clothes-puller" thread. He becomes no more or less a suspect by such a decision, so IMHO this thread is rather pointless.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Fleetwod Mac:

" In fact, based on the name he gave, he was tracked down."

... by a police force who failed to notice that it said "Lechmere" on the door?

I don´t think that he was tracked down at all, for the simple reason that nobody had to do any tracking. I concur with Lechmere (the poster!) - in all probability, our man went to the police himself, cashing in on his actions twice: He reinforced the stand-up citizen picture he had already provided, and he avoided having the police coming to his doorstep.
Robert Paul was the man the police had to track down - and he appeared several days later at the inquest than Lechmere did, having saved the police the trouble of looking for him

The best,
Fisherman