Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Bridewell]

The Neglectful Police

But dave it is true that the police were neglectful in not guarding polly's corpse and were neglectful in not questioning all the residents in bucks row.
There can be no dispute about that.
We can of course disagree over what can be extrapolated from there.

There can be no dispute about that.

The following is from Inspector Spratling's report, dated 31st August 1888:

"I made enquiries and was informed by Mrs Emma Green, a widow, New Cottage adjoining, and Mr Walter Purkiss, Essex Wharf, oppisite (sic), also of William Cour(t), Nightwatchman to Messrs. Brown & Eagle, Bucks Row."


Spratling did not personally visit all the addresses on Bucks Row, but he visited some of them. I would anticipate that more junior officers did most of the house-to-house enquiries.

This is from Insp Helson's report, dated 7th September:

"Enquiries have also been made from the persons who reside in the locality, watchmen who were employed in adjoining premises, P.C.s on the adjoining beats, and in every quarter from which it was thought any useful information might be obtained."

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

Bridewell
That was all dealt with above.

Lynn
I think the key to the JI (for ease of spelling) issue is establishing whether he had a brother, and if so where he was living - or maybe you have done that. Otherwise the Star story would have to be believed I think.

[lynn cates]

family

Hello Lechmere. Mary Isenschmid deposed that JI had NO family in England.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"I would anticipate that more junior officers did most of the house-to-house enquiries."

As a retired police officer, yes, you would anticipate that, would you not? But alas, we have Spratling admitting on the 17:th of September, before the inquest, that no other house on the southern side of Buckīs Row had been afforded any interest by the police, than that of Mrs Green, staying in New Cottage, immediately adjacent to the murder spot.

And this is one of the reasons why it has to be accepted that the investigation into the death of Polly Nichols was sloppy. Anybody would anticipate that the police were thorough, not least since we are speaking of the Ripper murders here, but the truth of the matter is that they were anything but thorough. They left lots of work unattended to, and once the snowball started rolling faster, from Chapman on, much of the resources would have been directed away from the Nichols case.

This is why I am - repeatedly - saying that those who claim that Charles Lechmere MUST have been looked into by the police, and that his wife MUST have been questioned to confirm his story, they need to realize that the Nichols investigation was not up to standards, generally speaking. And there will be a number of reasons for this, one of them being that the victim was a prostitute, killed in a poverty-stricken part of London. Even today, serial killers will tell us after having been caught that they opted for prostitutes because only the fewest will miss them and report their absence, and since the police will not put these cases on the top of the things-to-do pile of errands. There has been a change for the better since these mechanisms have been acknowledged, but in 1888 the social perspective would have had a large impact. A lack of experience when it comes to dealing with serial killers will also have played a role, as will preconceived notions about what the killer must have been like. Ripperology still suffers from that particular misconception to this day. Finally, even though WE know in retrospect that Nichols was a so called Ripper murder, the police did NOT know this then. The "It-could-well-have-been-one-man-doing-Smith-Tabram-and-Nichols-thing was a press invention, more or less. A serial killer scare is not started by the first victim - the starting gun requires more victims before it goes off.

The vast majority of the Buckīs Row tenants were not asked about their knowledge about the murder night, at least not during the first weeks after the murder, the victim was handled in a very unsatisfactory manner, and the man who was found by the victim was apparently not even looked into to a degree that would have revealed that he had given a false name to the police. By the looks of things, the police did not bother to visit his home, or they WOULD have known his true name.

The picture is very consistent, thus, and it does not speak of a complete and thorough investigation.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Bridewell

Spratling did not personally visit all the addresses on Bucks Row, but he visited some of them. I would anticipate that more junior officers did most of the house-to-house enquiries.

Indeed, or as Abberline was on the spot the very day of the murder, the Scotland Yard Detectives would have acted independantly of the J-Div officers, possibly why Swanson believed the residents of Bucks Row were interviewed.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"Indeed, or as Abberline was on the spot the very day of the murder, the Scotland Yard Detectives would have acted independantly of the J-Div officers, possibly why Swanson believed the residents of Bucks Row were interviewed."

It is hard to dispell, Jon, is it not, the notion that the police MUST have been thorough? Letīs have a look, for a change, at how the Times worded what Spratling said at the inquest on the 17:th!

"Witness (Spratling) further said he had made inquiries at Mrs. Green's, the wharf, at Sneider's Factory, and also at the Great Eastern Wharf, but no one at those places had heard anything unusual during the morning in question. He had seen the Board school keeper, but he had not heard anything. Had the other inhabitants heard a disturbance of any kind they would, no doubt, have communicated with the police."

And there you are - the police simply left it to the inhabitants of Buckīs Row to contact the police if they had heard something. For they would "no doubt" have done so, according to Spratling. In a society where we know quite well that the police was looked upon by many citizens with feelings ranging from distrust to disliking.

Small wonder that the coroner did not appreciate the neglect, wouldnīt you say? And we are speaking here of the 17:th of September. Surely you are not suggesting that the Yard had done a house-to-house and told nothing about the outcome of it to Helson and Spratling..?

All the best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Yes, it is hard to dispel. Especially knowing that since they spoke in their internal reports that as there was no clue as to the identity of the killer they were following all up the avenues that were open to them, such as the witnesses.

Note how the Police interviewed the three slaughtermen in Winthrop St. They were visited at work by the Police (even though two of the slaughtermen lived on Winthrop St) and urposefully interviewed seperately.

Yes, I think it very possible that the Detectives working out of Bishopsgate Police Station didn`t notify Spratling and Helson of J-Div in Bethnal Green.

We still don`t even know how the police found Cross. Was it through house to house like the City Police did with Lawende, or did Mizen take his name and details - although it doesn`t appear so from his inquest appearance.

But yes, it may have been down to the residents filing up to the Policeman outside Mrs Green`s and telling them what they knew - but we kind of know that only Harriet Lilley heard anything - but maybe not enough to be called to the Inquest.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"Yes, it is hard to dispel. Especially knowing that since they spoke in their internal reports that as there was no clue as to the identity of the killer they were following all up the avenues that were open to them, such as the witnesses."

To be fair, Jon, this was not really what they said, was it? What they said was that they inquired "in every quarter from which it was thought any useful information might be obtained."

And apparently, the police did not expect any useful information was to be found in any of the south side houses of Buckīs Row, other that New cottage ...

"Note how the Police interviewed the three slaughtermen in Winthrop St. They were visited at work by the Police (even though two of the slaughtermen lived on Winthrop St) and urposefully interviewed seperately."

Yes. They were slaughtermen, their work involving details such as killing and cutting up, and they worked a few steps from where Nichols was found, in a street that was traversed by very few people at the time of night when she was killed. The inference was very obvious, thus!

"I think it very possible that the Detectives working out of Bishopsgate Police Station didn`t notify Spratling and Helson of J-Div in Bethnal Green."

That amazes me, to be honest. But even if you are correct, and if Spratling was completely unaware on the 17:th that OTHER detectives had interviewed all the inhabitants of the Buckīs Row houses, we are faced with serious shortcomings on behalf of the police. Any such action needed to be reported to the man in charge, Helson, since it would have saved him the trouble of doing it all again.
But I donīt think you are right, Jon. And I know at any rate that the police force that was supposed to deal with the matter, the J division, did NOT make house to house inquiries during the first two weeks after the strike! And that is the only example we have on record, as far as police efficiency goes in this matter.
Moreover, the Times tells us that "Detective-Inspectors Abberline (Scotland-yard) and Helson, and Inspectors Spratling and Chandler watched the case on behalf of the Criminal Investigation Department and Commissioners of Police" on the 17:th, and so IF there had been a house-to-house carried out, Abberline would have been in a position to absolve Spratling and put an extra shine on the Yard. The fact that he did no such thing tells us that he either wanted to keep it a secret from the coroner, or ... well, you get my drift, Jon!

"We still don`t even know how the police found Cross. Was it through house to house like the City Police did with Lawende, or did Mizen take his name and details - although it doesn`t appear so from his inquest appearance."

... or did he simply report to a police station himself? I think that was exactly what he did. I think he was keen not to have the police knocking at his door, since that would have given away the Cross/Lechmere scam, and the fact that it was NOT given away tells me that he took care of it himself. Another pointer in this direction comes along neatly when he turns up at the inquest in his working clothes. The notion that he wanted to keep his wife unknowing of his attendance there becomes a very tantalizing thing.
I would still say that Mizen DID take his and Paulīs names and addresses, since that would have been standard procedure.

"it may have been down to the residents filing up to the Policeman outside Mrs Green`s and telling them what they knew - but we kind of know that only Harriet Lilley heard anything - but maybe not enough to be called to the Inquest."

We kind of know that only Lilley spoke to the press (Or do we? Was there not a young girl that spoke of screams?). Others may well have known/guessed/heard things - but if you donīt ask, you donīt get to share in that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon!

Hereīs the girl I was talking about. Turns out she lived in Brady Street, but if the police did not talk to the Buckīs Row settlers, then we may safely assume ...

"Charlotte Colville, who lives about the middle of Brady-street, made the following statement to our representative on Friday night :- I am 11 years of age, and sleep with my mother. Early this (Friday) morning, before it was light, I heard terrible cries of "Murder! Murder! Police! Police! Murder!" They seemed a good way down Brady-street to the right, where the marks of bloody hands are. Then the sounds came up the street towards our house, and I heard a scuffling and a bumping against our shutters. I got out of bed and woke my mother. The woman kept on calling out "Murder! Police!" and the sounds went on in the direction of Buck's-row, where the body was found. I am sure the first sounds seemed to come from where the blood-stains of hands are on the wall.
Mrs. Colville said that her little girl woke her, and she heard the woman's cries, but the rows go on every night, and people are constantly being knocked down and robbed by the fearful gangs about. It would not be safe for anyone to get out of their beds to go and interfere. People have done so, and only been terribly ill-treated."

The story was in many papers early in September.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

"From the press report(s) which quoted Cross as having said, ‘I’m not going to touch her.’"
Errrr and the press reports that quote him as saying that he had touched her? This is getting a little stupid.

Not just a little stupid, Lechmere. Cross’s refusal to touch the body came in response to Paul’s suggestion that they ‘shift’ the woman. This hardly sounds like a man who was attempting to provide an innocent explanation for any bloodstaining that might be found on his hands and clothing.

An example of a serial killer who kills while at work?
Dr Shipman - that took me one second to remember. Or Beverley Allit? And Gary Ridgeway may well have killed on his way to work.

You’re addressing a point I never made, Lechmere. Here’s what I wrote: 'What’s more, sadosexual serialists do not waylay, throttle, kill and mutilate victims just minutes before they are due to clock on at work.’ Neither Allit nor Shipman were sadosexual serialists, and there is not an atom of evidence that Ridgeway ever waylaid, throttled, killed and mutilated a victim just minutes before he was due to clock on at work.

And liars... If Hucthinson lied we can make him a suspect can't we? But that would be hypothesising wouldn't it? Conjouring something sinsister from an innocent event? Turning opinion into fact?

One word, Lechmere: evidence.

And now, like Sally and a number of others, I’ll bid farewell to the absurdity of this thread.

[Fisherman]

Just for the record, Garry, you still seem to work under the misapprehension that "shift" did not mean prop up in this case. Therefore, you may need to take a look at these excerpts:

Illustrated Police News, Sep 8:
Feeling the hands cold and limp witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is." The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her."

Daily News, Sep 4:
The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

To be fair, Jon, this was not really what they said, was it? What they said was that they inquired "in every quarter from which it was thought any useful information might be obtained."

I`m currently at work but I`ll reference the report I refer to, later this evening. It`S not THE report you refer to

Yes. They were slaughtermen, their work involving details such as killing and cutting up, and they worked a few steps from where Nichols was found, in a street that was traversed by very few people at the time of night when she was killed. The inference was very obvious, thus!.

Again, this special treatment for interviewing the slaughterman is in the report I refer to.


"I think it very possible that the Detectives working out of Bishopsgate Police Station didn`t notify Spratling and Helson of J-Div in Bethnal Green."

... or did he simply report to a police station himself? I think that was exactly what he did.!.

Did Mizen takes Paul`s details too? Paul didn`t show up at the first Inquest.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"Did Mizen takes Paul`s details too? Paul didn`t show up at the first Inquest."

I canīt tell whether he took any details at all, Jon. I only know that procedure was to do so, according to a post made by Monty in this errand some time ago. Therefore I work from the assumption that he did this.
Why Paul did not turn up at the first section of the inquest, I donīt know. Maybe he chose not to, quite simply - it was a costly thing to do, as he witnessed about, making him loose wages. At any rate, if Mizen had taken down the Foster Street address and/or the Corbettīs court ditto, then Paul should have been easy enough to find.

All the best, Jon!

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Given that Paul didn't appear of his own volition and his house was raided at a later date, it seems almost certain that Cross voluntarily reported to a police station once the garish press reports appeared on Friday evening.
Cross was at the inquest on the Monday so he must have presented himself sometime between Friday evening and Sunday night. That is about all that can be said with any confidence. This applies whether Cross was the culprit or not.
The delay in raiding Paul's home is suggestive I think that Mizen (notwithstanding correct procedure) took their names only and not their addresses. Otherwise I would guess the police would have called around sooner. It certainly suggests that the police expected him to present himself rather wait to be called.
Either way it is very suggestive that Cross's house was not visited by the police given his early appearance at the inquest.
Mizen was clearly more interested in continuing his knocking up and it is also clear that neither Cross (who almost certainly did all the talking) nor Paul alerted Mizen to the certainty that there was a corpse lying in Bucks Row. Hence the possibility that Mizen was neglectful in taking their addresses.
When Cross made his statement at a police station he would certainly have had to give his address. There would have been the danger that the police might follow up the interview with a visit. He would have to give his genuine address, even if he was the culprit, as otherwise he would be the subject of closer scrutiny and a possible manhunt which he had to avoid as he walked those streets every day on the way to work.
It would have been a calculated risk.
He swung the odds in his favour my murdering Annie Chapman in the early hours of the following Saturday morning, a hundred or so yards from Paul's workplace - before Paul had appeared at the inquest and we must guess before Paul had been traced.
The police could have traced Paul via his name as given to Mizen and via the details given by Paul himself in the press interview that he gave on the evening of Friday 31st August.

The whole point about Cross is that he was a bland looking, anonymous, unsuspcious (yes, suspicious becaue he is unsuspicious!) guy. He was humble and respectful in his work apron, yes-sir-ing the Coroner. He was not a mad man (overtly anyway), he was not a foreigner, he was not a medical man or a gang member or a butcher (unlike the three gentlemen of Winthrop Street). This enabled him to slip in and out the case barely noticed and unremarked.
Dear old Walter Dew couldn't even remember his name in his memoirs. But he could remember Hutchinson's!
Unnoticed by several generations of Ripperologists. Just as we should perhaps expect.

Cross and Paul were not mentioned at all in the earlier police reports on the case. Their names and addresses appear in Abberline's report of 19th September (two days after Paul's inquest appearance) and they appear briefly in the summary written by Swanson on 19th October.

Interestingly the dates falll on the same days this year.

I am still at a loss to know why Garry (and as he is out of here we will now never know) is making such play of Cross testifying that he used the words "I am not going to touch her" in response to Paul suggesting that they shift her meaning to prop Polly up so she was not lying flat on the pavement. In Cross's testimony it is clear that this aspect of not touching 'her' was with respect to the suggestion that she be propped up. It has nothing to do with earlier touching of 'her' that Cross without a shadow of doubt had been partaking in prior to Paul's over enthusiastic suggestion. That being the case, if Cross's sole motive in touching and inciting Paul to touch the body was to provide himself with an alibi for having blood on him, going further and grabbing her to the extent that she could be propped up was unnecessary and furthermore risked immediate discovery - an immediate cry and a possible search whoch would reveal a secreted bloody knife.
The 'prop' issue strongly suggests by the way that Paul thought she was alive - whereas Cross says he said he thought she was dead. So we have Cross testifying that when Paul and Cross spoke to each other over Polly's body, Cross intimated that he thought she was dead, whereas Paul intimated that he thought she was alive.
Paul was not present at the inquest on that day to contradict this version of events.
Incidentally as the 'prop' proposal was an unusual and quite specific thing to make up I would suggest it actually did happen.
Did Cross really say he thought she was dead? Or was that a subtefuge to but the blame for his vague report to Mizen on Paul's shoulders? I suspect he said no such thing.

[Lechmere]

Hello Lechmere. Mary Isenschmid deposed that JI had NO family in England.

Cheers.
LC

I am struggling to find this statement... any pointers?