Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Fisherman]

I´m sorry, Garry, but my discussion with you over this is through for my part, at least until you add something of real value. As it stands, you seem to have forgotten (neglected, disregarded, overlooked etc) that the face of a person is situated about one or two inches from the neck ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

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.

Lechmere, I understand that, but there really isn't much more than a simple touch, is there? I mean the police on their beats would make better suspects in my mind. I'm interested to see how far you guys can go on this, but obviously it's a difficult path to take.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

As it stands, you seem to have forgotten (neglected, disregarded, overlooked etc) that the face of a person is situated about one or two inches from the neck ...

And you seem to have forgotten (neglected, disregarded, overlooked etc) that Nichols' face was not bloodstained, meaning that Cross could not have accounted for bloodstaining to his hands or clothing in the manner you have described.

[Lechmere]

Garry
If Cross did it, why did he touch the body in front of Paul? Undoubtedly so he could explain any blood transfers on him should they be noticed by a policeman who happened upon the scene or perhaps one they might bump into while along their way. That no policeman happened upon them while they where with Polly’s body was fortunate and it seems that neither of them had noticeable blood stains anyway or one might assume Mizen may have noticed.
Incidentally the apparent lack of blood on Cross and Paul (particularly Paul who seems to have had more contact with the corpse and her clothing) is suggestive that whoever did the crime need not have been blood splattered – contrary to the assertions made by some.
However Cross would hardly have known that at the moment he accosted Paul in the street.
It is quite a simple point that he touched her to get an alibi for any blood on him. It was not necessary for Cross to actively poke his hands in the bloodiest areas to do this. Any contact with the body would have sufficed to give him this ‘alibi’.

Why did he admit to touching the body (hands and face) at the inquest? It implied to the audience that he didn’t know whether she was alive or dead and so he was not responsible for the crime. He added the touch of saying that he thought she was dead (before he says that Paul replied that he thought she was alive) to absolve him somewhat for the confusion involving Mizen and whether he actually told Mizen that she was dead or alive.
Remember Paul wasn’t at the inquest on that day. It is quite likely that Cross knew the police had not been able to trace him (through casual conversation before the inquest started). Cross got his version of events in first. Who knows whether Cross actually did say that he thought that Polly was dead? By the time Paul appeared his evidence was dealt with briefly and he was in bad odour with the police.

I don’t know where you get your confident assertion that: “Paul would have stated that Cross had emphatically refused to touch the body”.Cross refused to prop her up. That is a different proposition. He did not refuse to touch her. Cross can easily have claimed to have touched her several times and that would have been sufficient to explain any blood transfers.
And again, why did Cross refuse to help prop her up? Not to avoid blood transfers but to avoid it becoming blatantly obvious that Polly had been viciously attacked with a knife – as opposed perhaps to having fainted or swooned unto death.

Also when people lie they often have a tendency to over elaborate. Isn’t this the claim made against... Hutchinson? Cross’s account with all the precise touching recounted is perhaps what should be expected from a liar.

We are left with your other confident assertion:
“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.”
We certainly know that they do these crimes while at work – so why not on their way? You are not really in a position to put yourself in the mind of such a person, nor to establish when they would most easily have the opportunity to release their urges.

Mike
The case against Cross is not just dependent upon the touching. He can be linked to each crime scene. A policeman on his beat cannot.
He gave a name he is never known to have personally used.
His stated time of departure from his house to the stated time of discovery allowed time to commit the crime and if not to be a considerable distance down the road in front of Paul (not a mere 40 yards).
His route to work accompanying Paul was a detour for Cross.
Cross moved into the immediate area in June 1888.
Cross’s domestic and family circumstances are those that are found with many serial killers.
He turned up at the inquest in his work clothes when inquest attendees were paid for attendance and knew in advance that they would not be able to go to work.
It is the only instance where a body was left and the alarm not raised in the immediate vicinity. There were numerous night workers and nightwatchmen in the immediate vicinity who could have been told. That they thought she was perhaps ‘merely’ unconscious makes this desertion even worse.
And I could go on. That is why Cross is a better suspect than an average policeman.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Who knows whether Cross actually did say that he thought that Polly was dead?

I can answer that one: nobody. And it is a very important point, since the case we can make for Lechmere being the killer, involves elements of lying, like the pretense that his name was Cross, for instance.
Just like poster Lechmere says, he could well have produced a number of lies, especially since Paul was not there to contradict him.
Myself, I´m inclined to think that it borders on the ridiculous to say that he would have been pressed for time to be able to pick Nichols up, go with her to Buck´s Row and kill and mutilate her there, since he left home at 3.20 at the earliest and possibly as late as 3.30.
People actually use that estimation of time to work from, though we all know that it had one originator and one originator only - Lechmere himself!
Seriously, if he was the killer, why would he NOT claim that he left at an hour that meant that we would sit around 124 years later, claiming that he would have been pressed for time ...?
Get real, that´s what I say.

Garry:

"And you seem to have forgotten (neglected, disregarded, overlooked etc) that Nichols' face was not bloodstained, meaning that Cross could not have accounted for bloodstaining to his hands or clothing in the manner you have described."

I know I have told you that I think our exchange is over, but I could not resist this:

IF, Garry, Lechmere was the killer, then he would NOT have told the truth at the inquest. I think we both can agree on that, although it is getting increasingly hard to find points to agree with you about. This one will be hard for you to deny, though: if he was the Ripper, then he lied at the inquest!

Now, assuming he WAS the Ripper, would he - after having walked away from the murder site unsearched, meaning that nobody had checked him for blood - would he have said at the inquest: "I felt her neck"?
Of course he would NOT do that, since it would have been impossible to feel her neck without having his hand bathed in blood. And we both know that Lechmere gave the impression that he had NOT noted any blood and NOT realized that Nichols was cut up. We may discuss forever whether this was because he was innocent and really did not notice the blood or whether it was because he falsely conveyed the impression that he knew not what had happened to Nichols.
But there can be no intelligent discussion involving any suggestion that Lechmere would have admitted to feeling her neck at the inquest IF he was the killer, can there? No - the ONLY reasonable suggestion IF he was the killer, and if he had touched the body, which we KNOW that he did, since he and Paul corroborate each other on this point, would be that he would admit to having touched Nichols - but NOT admit to having come in contact with a much bloodied area like the neck. He would only admit to having put his hands CLOSE to such an area, allowing for him to lie if needed: "I did touch her face, and my hand must have come in contact with the neck and all that blood at that stage".
Therefore, what he tells us about his touching of Nichols´body after Pauls entrance on the scene will in all probability be correct, irrespective of whether he WAS the killer or not. Either he comes clean about it as a truthful witness and an guiltless man, OR he comes clean about it as a killer that planned his every movement so as to maximize his defence, should the need arise.

What Lechmere was looking for would NOT have been to get his hands bloodied - what he was looking for would instead have been an excuse for having any blood at them anyway, in spite of his wish not to have it. If it was there, he needed an explanation. If it was NOT - or if he succeded to conceal it - then so much the better...

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Shakes head in disbelief

You think the police wouldn't have questioned Cross/Lechmere's wife about the time he left? The guy who discovered the body...I'll quote your own words:-

Get real, that´s what I say.

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Now what happened to those posts just then? Jeez I've heard of revisionist thinking, but that was FAST!

Dave

[Fisherman]

Davel:

"You think the police wouldn't have questioned Cross/Lechmere's wife about the time he left?"

...whereas you think she would not have reacted as the policemen interviewing her called her "Mrs Cross"?

There´s that "get real" again, Dave. And the next time it surfaces is when we consider the possibility that even IF they asked her, and she played along as the called her Mrs Cross for some peculiar reason, she may have given the very uncontroversial answer "I really don´t know since I slept, but he tells me he normally leaves at around 3.30."

I mean, how hard can it be, Dave ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

I'm not suffering from an identity crisis...though possibly you are...

I was responding to the post that was briefly there, then disappeared...the one the "get real" quote was extracted from...the one replaced by your alleged "edit" at 1008 pm which is actually a totally revised post...you've just lost ALL credibility with me!

Sorry and goodnight

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

And now you've edited again...don't bother

Dave

[Lechmere]

I actually would suppose that he left at 3.20 or so - which in any case gave him more than ample time. He would have not have given a widely varient time in case his wife was asked. In my opinion it is almost certain that the police did not in fact ask his wife as his alias would have come to light and ben recorded as other aliases were.
If you think the police were thorough in this case then check the extant records. The police were criticised for not even interviewing most residents in Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"don't bother" ... " a totally revised post"

Totally revised? I originally was under the impresion that Bridewell was the one asking a question, and answered him. Then I saw it was you, and changed the name in my answer to Dave. How does that make my post "totally revised"?

The question I ask is a simple one - if you are correct that the police interviewed Lechmere´s wife, why did she not notice that they were calling her Cross?

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

OK Lechmere...You I'll trust and listen to...these much-criticised police...tell me about them... Was it widespread in the press or just one paper? Do you think it was a "Packer-like" criticism or genuine? No trick questions or sarcasm...I'm honestly interested...

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

It was genuine. Robert Paul was one of those complaining the most publicly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

What's in a name?

Hello Christer. I know I should not be here, but . . .

You were mentioning about the police and an alias. 2 quick questions.

You recall the lass who chatted up Polly and tried to persuade her to come home?

1. How many aliases did she have?

2. Did the police stick at this?

Cheers.
LC