Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Sally]

Oh Dear...

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

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

[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.

[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

[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.