Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

Tom,

I've bagged Paul already. Along with Henry Paul, Robbie Paul, Paul Daniels, Pau Begg, Paula Abdul and Mrs Fiddymont.

Its just a feeling I have.

Monty

Okay, Monty, you got me.

I confess--I am your man Jack--cleverly disguised, of course, as an American woman living in the 21st century. After all these years I thought I had outwitted everyone but alas, I shall now be tracked down to my lair....

Sincerely yours, Boss,
Jill the Ripper

[Rubyretro]

What we would be dealing with is a risk taker who has a compulsion to kill. I would presume he also committed the Martha Tabram murder and ever since then he would have been psyching himself up for the next attack.

I agree.

He would be comfortable in Bucks Row because of its very familiarity. If led there and if he felt he could get away with it, then he would just do it, rather as a fox will kill every chicken in the hen house if it gets inside

.
I don't like the analogy. A fox goes quite mad in a hen house and capitulates to pure instinct in a crazy murderous spree but the Ripper kept his wits about him.

If you think that Cross was the killer, but could stop and think out the situation when Paul approached, then Cross was hardly like "a fox in a hen house", he was one cool character.

As it happens, I think that the Ripper WAS a cool character, always aware of police beats, approaching danger, and prepared to brazen things out from self preservation, and with a sharp brain at his disposal.

If Cross had been sighted in a more compromising situation than he actually was (by Paul) – spotted leaving 29 Hanbury Street for example - then he had other options to use for his route to work. He could have varied it. The person who spotted him would hardly have known who he was. He would merely have to use a different route.

I feel certain that people going to regular work at a regular time in the morning, when there were not hoards of people at large, would recognise other people by sight even if they were not acknowledged (and isn't it very usual to wish strangers 'Good Morning', even if you don't 'know' them ? If you've glanced into their face a few times ? I would. It's English politeness to recognise people as individuals and greet them). Cross could certainly never bank on being unrecognised by anybody that he crossed in those near empty streets at those times in the morning.

Cross spotted in Hanbury Street, next to a murder scene, could not ever have just 'imagined' that nobody would be able to describe him. I think that he would rather have an heightened awareness of the danger that he was in, after having 'discovered ' the body in Bucks Row.

You see - this is the major problem that I have with Cross as JTR, as opposed to Hutchinson...

Hutch wasn't in regular employment, thus did not take the same roads and pass the same people at the same times as Cross did..

Hutch wasn't linked as a witness to any previous murders, and could pass as anonymous in Hanbury street (or if not 'anonymous' , at least unassociated to any deaths), as Cross couldn't..

–

hence as he felt he had ‘got away with it’ he would have been comfortable about presenting himself at a police station and making a statement and appearing at the inquest.
The possibility of being caught is unlikely to have inhibited him – it seldom does in such cases. Pulling the wool over the eyes of the police in the Nichols enquiry will probably have given him a sense of empowerment.

Yes.

That was always my argument for Hutch. That is what Serial Killers often do -but you argued against it when it suited you.

• I suspect that when he wanted to find a victim, he would usually use Whitechapel Road – Whitechapel High Street.

That could be could for both Cross and Hutch..

• If he wanted to get to work quickly (as would normally be the case) the Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street route.
• If he needed to take a different route there was Hanbury Street.
• If he needed to avoid the killing ground altogether a slightly longer route would take him along the road that ran on the northern edge of the railway line past Bethnal Green overground station (I haven’t got my old maps with me but the roads are now called Dunbridge Street and Cheshire Street).
• There are still other potential east-west routes that could be taken to get Cross to Pickford’s at Broad Street.

Perfectly true.

On the issue of the culprit suggesting to the prostitute that they go somewhere else, I am afraid it doesn’t work like that.

Really ? Do you know ? How ?

Aren't they just two human beings that try and find a mutually satisfactory solution ? So wouldn't either of them be open to suggestion ? (one with money and one with experience with which to deal..and if the bloke had both the money and the experience, and a physical strength, and a 'silver tongue' to boot, well I think that Polly would just follow him, myself..).

In any case when they hypothetically met on Whitechapel Road, Polly will not have said:
“Hello Mister, I’m going to take you to Bucks Row”.
She will have led him around the corner and they would have ended up in Bucks Row. If he didn’t like it there and then he would have aborted and I have no doubt that on occasion this is what happened.

No doubt true. If he had had a better idea though, I bet that he would have said and she'd have gone..

There are valid theories that the Ripper would be likely to be found to live in the epicentre of the crimes- based on the distribution of the bodies. This sort of profiling – which is based on an examination of many actually cases, is based exactly on the knowledge that serial killers very often do ‘XXXX on their own doorstep’. This is because their doorstep is a comfort zone and the culprit feels more confident and is relaxed in familiar surroundings – they know the street lay out better and so forth. Many criminals – not just serial killers – operate on this basis.

True, I'm sure.

The case against Cross is partly based on this sort of profiling but the distribution is linear rather than radiating out from the centre. This is because Cross had two centres of gravity that he operated between – his work and his home. His hinterland was the area between – where the bodies of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Kelly and Mackenzie were found.
Actually with Cross it was more complex than that as he also had his recent previous house and his almost adjacent mother’s residence, and his recent previous route to work – which accounts for Stride, Eddowes and possibly the Pinchin Street torso.

I won't argue with that. I think that Cross is a valid suspect.

This line of thinking is used to promote the case of various Ripper suspects, where the case is based at least partially on where the suspect lived.
This places nearly all the crime scenes close to the potential culprit’s home, which would have made his discovery that more likely, as logically he would be recognised by more people near where he lived than further afield.

Obviously.

If we take the example of Hutchinson – this would make Tabram and Mackenzie very problematic. It makes writing the graffiti very risky (and so I presume would have to be denied as the work of the Ripper)

I don't think that the Ripper wrote that graffito at all -it's true.

and leaving the apron in that location – a long stone’s throw from his lodging house - an act of supreme recklessness.

Chuck it onto the floor quick ? Must take a second

Increasing daring ? A sense of power ? Flirting with danger ? Euphoria after the Double Event 'success' ?

Kelly murder is uncomfortably close as is that of Chapman.
Using the same standard of judgement, Hutchinson would have to have been extremely reckless.

Ditto above.

Vanity ? Showing off for the Press as well, added in ? Goading ?

However I would not use that line of reasoning against Hutchinson as it is common for serial killers to ‘XXXX on their own doorstep’ and to take great risks.

You reassure me.

It is my opinion that whoever he was, the Ripper was a risk taker, yet was also a quick thinker.

Not a fox then. We agree.

Cunning and street smart yes, but that does not contradict his potential propensity to take great risks. It is a common place to say that every murder scene had great risks associated with it – for the murderer. In my opinion that was essentially an occupational hazard. I believe we are looking for a killer who’s only opportunity to kill forced the taking of these risks on them.

Totally.

This incidentally would be the same for a culprit such as Hutchinson, Fleming, Mann, Barnett and Kosminsky. There are those that think Kosminsky was recognised of course, although an overtly mad killer (which is what Kosminsky would be had it been him) would probably be more likely to run amok and kill in broad day light. That would go for Isenschmid as well.

To my mind, the only one in that list worth bothering about is Hutch. And he wasn't Fleming.

(I feel quite protective of Joe Barnett..poor bloke...how could you include him in your list ?..)

[Lechmere]

Abby

What we would be dealing with is a risk taker who has a compulsion to kill. I would presume he also committed the Martha Tabram murder and ever since then he would have been psyching himself up for the next attack.
He would be comfortable in Bucks Row because of its very familiarity. If led there and if he felt he could get away with it, then he would just do it, rather as a fox will kill every chicken in the hen house if it gets inside.
If Cross had been sighted in a more compromising situation than he actually was (by Paul) – spotted leaving 29 Hanbury Street for example - then he had other options to use for his route to work. He could have varied it. The person who spotted him would hardly have known who he was. He would merely have to use a different route.
Of course he would want to avoid having to do that – hence as he felt he had ‘got away with it’ he would have been comfortable about presenting himself at a police station and making a statement and appearing at the inquest.
The possibility of being caught is unlikely to have inhibited him – it seldom does in such cases. Pulling the wool over the eyes of the police in the Nichols enquiry will probably have given him a sense of empowerment.

Cross’s quickest route was down Old Montague Street and I have no doubt he would have used this route usually. Carmen would know the quickest route from A to B. I have seen an extraordinary claim that Old Montague Street was notoriously dangerous and so Cross would have avoided it. We know from testimony that Bucks Row was dangerous and he clearly didn’t avoid that thoroughfare. And was Hanbury Street safe in comparison to Old Montague Street? I don’t think so.

• I suspect that when he wanted to find a victim, he would usually use Whitechapel Road – Whitechapel High Street.
• If he wanted to get to work quickly (as would normally be the case) the Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street route.
• If he needed to take a different route there was Hanbury Street.
• If he needed to avoid the killing ground altogether a slightly longer route would take him along the road that ran on the northern edge of the railway line past Bethnal Green overground station (I haven’t got my old maps with me but the roads are now called Dunbridge Street and Cheshire Street).
• There are still other potential east-west routes that could be taken to get Cross to Pickford’s at Broad Street.

On the issue of the culprit suggesting to the prostitute that they go somewhere else, I am afraid it doesn’t work like that.
In any case when they hypothetically met on Whitechapel Road, Polly will not have said:
“Hello Mister, I’m going to take you to Bucks Row”.
She will have led him around the corner and they would have ended up in Bucks Row. If he didn’t like it there and then he would have aborted and I have no doubt that on occasion this is what happened.

There are valid theories that the Ripper would be likely to be found to live in the epicentre of the crimes- based on the distribution of the bodies. This sort of profiling – which is based on an examination of many actually cases, is based exactly on the knowledge that serial killers very often do ‘XXXX on their own doorstep’. This is because their doorstep is a comfort zone and the culprit feels more confident and is relaxed in familiar surroundings – they know the street lay out better and so forth. Many criminals – not just serial killers – operate on this basis.
The case against Cross is partly based on this sort of profiling but the distribution is linear rather than radiating out from the centre. This is because Cross had two centres of gravity that he operated between – his work and his home. His hinterland was the area between – where the bodies of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Kelly and Mackenzie were found.
Actually with Cross it was more complex than that as he also had his recent previous house and his almost adjacent mother’s residence, and his recent previous route to work – which accounts for Stride, Eddowes and possibly the Pinchin Street torso.

This line of thinking is used to promote the case of various Ripper suspects, where the case is based at least partially on where the suspect lived.
This places nearly all the crime scenes close to the potential culprit’s home, which would have made his discovery that more likely, as logically he would be recognised by more people near where he lived than further afield.
If we take the example of Hutchinson – this would make Tabram and Mackenzie very problematic. It makes writing the graffiti very risky (and so I presume would have to be denied as the work of the Ripper) and leaving the apron in that location – a long stone’s throw from his lodging house - an act of supreme recklessness. The Kelly murder is uncomfortably close as is that of Chapman.
Using the same standard of judgement, Hutchinson would have to have been extremely reckless.

However I would not use that line of reasoning against Hutchinson as it is common for serial killers to ‘XXXX on their own doorstep’ and to take great risks.

It is my opinion that whoever he was, the Ripper was a risk taker, yet was also a quick thinker. Cunning and street smart yes, but that does not contradict his potential propensity to take great risks. It is a common place to say that every murder scene had great risks associated with it – for the murderer. In my opinion that was essentially an occupational hazard. I believe we are looking for a killer who’s only opportunity to kill forced the taking of these risks on them. This incidentally would be the same for a culprit such as Hutchinson, Fleming, Mann, Barnett and Kosminsky. There are those that think Kosminsky was recognised of course, although an overtly mad killer (which is what Kosminsky would be had it been him) would probably be more likely to run amok and kill in broad day light. That would go for Isenschmid as well.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"If they met on Whitechapel Road i find it rather improbable that the cunning street smart killer would let her lead him to Bucks row which was his daily walk to work..." ... "... On the other hand, he may have known, since he traveled Bucks row on a daily basis,sometimes a little earlier, sometimes a little later that perhaps during this time frame he seldom or never encountered anyone else (or a PC) so he knew it was safe?"

He potentially killed in Buck´s Row, in Mitre Square and in Berner Street, Abby, all places that were patrolled by PC:s on the beat. It was therefore of great weight to him that he took advantage of the pockets of time that offered themselves to him.
We know that he was familiar with Buck´s Row, and there is good reason to believe that the same applied to Berner Street. In them cases, he could well have known the exact beats of the policemen walking them. But in the Mitre Square case, it can be suggested that the Eddowes strike was not a premeditated one, but instead a strike that followed on a botched killing/mutilation of another victim - Stride.

And if this is true, and if he did not know the beats of the PC:s close to Mitre Square, then why choose a spot where a PC could arrive any second? Well, there is of course the possibility that he took advantage of the knowledge of the prostitutes - they would professionally have good reason to keep track of the PC beats adjoining their servicing areas, right? And maybe this is exactly what he did in all cases - hooked up with a prostitute that knew at what time a certain area could be used for business. And maybe that was what lead him to Buck´s Row in Nichols´company, unless he was already familiar with the PC beat himself.

The window of time that was open for him to kill would not have been too big. Therefore, I would suggest that he looked for prey in the more common hunting grounds; large, more heavily frequented streets walked by prostitutes, and then let the women lead him to safe areas at safe hours.

"... you can do much much worse and i find this thread fascinating."

Thanks, Abby. Yes, you can do far worse. But in terms of making the dots connect, you actually can do no better ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

Since you are so anxious to have only your own thinking published, while you recommend me not to post any more, I will satisfy you to some extent by only bringing one point up.

I can´t resist this gem:

"Had he been spotted and recognised fleeing from the second crime, having cemented his false role as innocent body-discoverer at the first, he’d have been in far more serious trouble than he would have been if seen walking along Hanbury Street shortly after the Nichols murder before the discovery of the body."

If he had been spotted and recognized, Ben, what would it matter if it was the second, the third or the umpteenth murder? And what would it matter if it was one, two or umpteen weeks down the line?

I´m struggling with that one, I have to say.

But let´s not let our disagreements come in the way of the progress of the thread! It would add fuel to Tom´s suggestion: "Is it possible some here are arguing more against the theorist than the theory?", and none of us would want that, would we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Ben
“If Cross was able to detect Paul’s presence from the moment the latter entered Buck’s Row, he had absolutely no reason to remain at the scene. He would have been well into his escape by the time Paul arrived at the crime scene. “Conning” his way out only makes sense as a proposal if he was taken more or less by surprise...”
Let me think – maybe if Cross did it, he was distracted a bit as he was occupied doing something that was important to him, and that is why Paul got a lot closer to him than he would have ideally liked.
I don’t think there’s anything else in your post that requires comment. It is purely based on your personal assumptions about what you think a serial killer would and wouldn’t do.

Abbey
My presumption would be that the Ripper picked Polly up on Whitechapel Road and she led him to Bucks Row.
I would also presume that serial killers, in common with many criminals, are more relaxed committing crime in an area that they are comfortable in – one they are familiar with.
My presumption would be that the Ripper was generally comfortable committing his crimes in locations his prostitute victims regarded as being discrete enough for engaging in the sexual act. Bucks Row fitted that bill.
My resumption is that the Ripper was a risk taker, but was also very quick witted and he relied on his wits to get him out of scrapes that his recklessness got him into.

Hi Lech
Thanks for the response. If they met on Whitechapel Road i find it rather improbable that the cunning street smart killer would let her lead him to Bucks row which was his daily walk to work. he would have probably worried that he could be seen by folks who recognized him and that this was his route to work and that it would not be safe seen with a prostitute, let alone possibly getting caught attacking one! He could have easily suggested somewhere else close but off his beaten path, somewhere where he would have no fear of being recognized doing either-its the old "dont **** where you eat" reasoning.

On the other hand, he may have known, since he traveled Bucks row on a daily basis,sometimes a little earlier, sometimes a little later that perhaps during this time frame he seldom or never encountered anyone else (or a PC) so he knew it was safe?

Anyhow, eventhough I think Lech isnt really a viable candidate, as Tom said you can do much much worse and i find this thread fascinating. At the very least all the debate can help you hone and sharpen your theory on the stone of the criticisms. I too look forward to Fishs article and any new evidence you bring up.

[Lechmere]

Tom
Every new theory should be vigorously tested of course, but in the Ripper world everyone already has their own theory and a new theory will always struggle for elbow room against pre conceived notions. A new theory based around an established character is all the more challenging.
Hence all sorts of spurious arguments are repeatedly raised and ‘obvious’ issues such as the police incompetence shown in the conduct of the Nichols case, or the body touching.
Similarly incredible chutzpah is shown by some posters decrying conjecture when it is known that the case against their own favoured culprit is constructed almost exclusively around conjecture.
The other thing that gets repeated is the thing about killing on his way to work. The thing about that is that has to be understood, if it was someone like him, the only opportunity they would have to commit the crimes would be then – it would be a case of Hobsons choice.
This leads to the same issue being repeated ad nauseam.
Th3ere is the added problem that Cross has many similarities with Hutchinson. They are amongst the very few ‘suspects’ (if I may include Cross as a suspect) where their behaviour ‘on the street’, by a crime scene, can be discussed. That invites opposition from certain quarters.
At the end of the day many are more comfortable discussing the more eccentric ‘suspects’ such as Monsieur Lautrec.

[Rubyretro]

If you repeat, I’ll repeat

Alka-Seltza. Trust me.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm surprised to find a couple of facts being debated, such as Cross having touched the body (he did) and the police having been delinquent in their duties (they were). Based on the evidence, I would consider these to be pretty hard 'facts', but I see not everyone agrees.

Is it possible some here are arguing more against the theorist than the theory? As far as theories go, you could do a whole helluva lot worse than Cross, though as of yet I haven't seen anything that would alter his status from 'witness' to 'suspect'. But I'm not going to talk about the theory any more until I can read Fish's full thesis in Ripperologist. However, I would personally see merit in discussing the actions of the police on the night of the murder, if there are some who really do think they did a commendable and thorough job.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Ben
“If Cross was able to detect Paul’s presence from the moment the latter entered Buck’s Row, he had absolutely no reason to remain at the scene. He would have been well into his escape by the time Paul arrived at the crime scene. “Conning” his way out only makes sense as a proposal if he was taken more or less by surprise...”
Let me think – maybe if Cross did it, he was distracted a bit as he was occupied doing something that was important to him, and that is why Paul got a lot closer to him than he would have ideally liked.
I don’t think there’s anything else in your post that requires comment. It is purely based on your personal assumptions about what you think a serial killer would and wouldn’t do.

Abbey
My presumption would be that the Ripper picked Polly up on Whitechapel Road and she led him to Bucks Row.
I would also presume that serial killers, in common with many criminals, are more relaxed committing crime in an area that they are comfortable in – one they are familiar with.
My presumption would be that the Ripper was generally comfortable committing his crimes in locations his prostitute victims regarded as being discrete enough for engaging in the sexual act. Bucks Row fitted that bill.
My resumption is that the Ripper was a risk taker, but was also very quick witted and he relied on his wits to get him out of scrapes that his recklessness got him into.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fish, Lech, All
I have a general question(s): If bucks row was his usual way to work, whats the chances of him meeting polly at that hour which also just happens to be on his way to work in Bucks Row? Pretty good coincidence is it not? Whats the chance she was solicitating in Bucks row?

But even better yet would a cunning and street smart killer like Lech/JtR kill on the same path he takes (almost)everyday?

[Cogidubnus]

Blimey O'Reilly

That's three times in three months I've found myself in agreement with Ben...Oh hell!

Dave

[Ben]

I’ve never known a theory go down quite so badly and receive such a pasting as this one seems to be receiving, and I suspect it has a good deal to do with the omnipresent, obstreperous bulldozer tactics employed by those promulgating the theory. For feck’s sake, people, if you’re churning out reams and reams of repetitive, filibustering posts that aren’t convincing anyone, whilst sitting on some purportedly convincing “research” that keeps being talked about but never produced, best to shaddap with the former and produce the latter, surely?

Hi Fisherman,

"What I am saying - and what I will say as many times as it takes - is that the accoustic conditions would in all probability have been such as to ENABLE Lechmere to hear Paul when he turned into Buck´s Row."

This is what I’m talking about. There’s really no need to repeat yourself over and over and threaten further repetition. It gets the thread nowhere and wastes your presumably precious time. If you repeat, I’ll repeat, which will be a shame because you’ve been so much better recently when it comes to uthållighet krigföring. I’ve addressed this point already. If Cross was able to detect Paul’s presence from the moment the latter entered Buck’s Row, he had absolutely no reason to remain at the scene. He would have been well into his escape by the time Paul arrived at the crime scene. “Conning” his way out only makes sense as a proposal if he was taken more or less by surprise, and yet you appear to be arguing that he was not – that he had the opportunity to notice Paul considerably earlier.

“And - as I have also said numerous times - since he was on his way to job, we need to realize that he would have passed down Buck´s Row perhaps fifty times since moving to Doveton Street”

Which both argues against his being the killer and goes some way to explaining why the vast majority of serial offenders don’t claim victims on their way to work. If Cross was familiar with his work route, he was also in a position to know the police beats (and monitor them particularly if he was the killer), as well as assess the likelihood of encountering anyone who knew him by sight. Obviously, he couldn’t try the same trick twice, and yet you contend he killed Chapman a mere week later, a little further along that same work route. Had he been spotted and recognised fleeing from the second crime, having cemented his false role as innocent body-discoverer at the first, he’d have been in far more serious trouble than he would have been if seen walking along Hanbury Street shortly after the Nichols murder before the discovery of the body.

It is not “rational” to forgo the opportunity for a quick and easy escape in favour of approaching a policeman with a murder weapon and hoping – against realistic hope - not to get searched. The policeman had only to hear from Paul that he had found a man near the body to draw his own conclusion. It is not “rational” to engineer a situation which establishes a false role as body-discoverer and inquest witness, only to commit a second murder a week later, along the same work route. A huge irony here is that the real killer did precisely that – flee from the scene – without any problem at all, and Buck’s Row was arguably the easiest of all crime scene to achieve this.

“A. He could have started work later that day.
B. He could have killed her on his way FROM Pickford´s, starting the days cart tours.
C: Any other useful explanation, like having hired somebody to do his work that day and telling Pickford´s - but not his wife and family.”

But if my auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle. Yes, I realise I wheel that one out quite often, but let’s just take a moment to understand what this favourite analogy of mine actually means. It means don’t defend an implausible conclusion with an equally implausible “if” scenario. Carmen worked at notoriously early work hours, rendering it highly implausible that he “started work later that day”. These were not flexible work hours. Option B is just hopeless because it implies that Cross went straight back to his car after killing Chaman, and the less said about option C the better. Presumably Pickfords were fine and dandy about someone coming into work in Cross’s stead? It convinceth not.

No, Cross is an irrefutably poor candidate for Chapman’s murderer, based on the likely time of her death. But hey, maybe she wasn't a true ripper victim and Stride was?

“I don´t think we need to revel in our knowledge that we do not have it on paper that Lechmere very possibly would have used the nearest road to his work.”

But we know he didn’t use it on the morning of 31st August, nor did he give any intimation that Hanbury Street was anything other than his usual route to work. The most likely explanation is that it was his preferred route, and given the alternatives, that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. There is no evidence that he ever used Old Montague Street, and that’s what we’re interested in, surely? Evidence?

“If there is anything in the Stride killing that points away from Lechmere having done it, then let´s hear what that something is.”

Well, for starters, there are all those arguments you made in the early days against Stride being a ripper victim. Unless you disavow all those now, they would “point away” from Cross the Ripper having been responsible. If you didn’t think she was a ripper victim then, the “discovery” of Cross’s mother living not far away shouldn’t make any difference to that previous opinion. Why? Because it doesn’t change the crime scene evidence that made you argue against her being a ripper victim in the first place. It’s fine if you don’t think there’s any problem with your Stride-Cross theorizing, but a lot of other people do, and for good reason.

I’d definitely have a pause from the repetitive posting. It clearly isn’t having any positive impact on your attempt to implicate Cross, and is clearly creating a lot of antagonism generally (I can't believe you threatened to have Garry banned). I’m genuinely more interested in seeing this research that you and Lechmere keep mentioning. Focus on that now, please!

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Jon...
"consequently enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves as persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police".
The whole thing about Cross was that he was so inocuous that no suspcion was cast upon him. Indeed he made himself inocuous and contrived his overt involvement to reflect that impression. Also as he was a regular householder in regular employment and of solid English descent, he was not of the class upon whoim suspicion naturally fell. Nor did his regular employment entail the use of butchers or surgeons knives.
Had Cross been, say, a lodging house dweller not in regular employment then, yes, I would imagine the police might have taken more interest in him and might well have 'checked out' his story much more thoroughly.

"The above sweep of the area by Detectives on Sept 2nd could have been when they picked up Cross, as he would appear the next day at the resumed Inquest."
But they missed Robert Paul completely presumably? Even though he lived considerably nearer to Bucks Row than Cross did? And they failed to discover that Cross's real name was Lechmere?
It isn't really sustainable

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"The report was Swanson`s summary on 19th Oct. The same one we were discussing earlier. The Police do appear to be digging a bit more than we are giving them credit for."

By and large, Jon, that would depend on who "we" are!

" enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves as persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police"

Not entailing Lechmere and the dwellers in Buck´s Row, thus ...

" Their statements were taken separately and without any means of communicating with each other...."

Yep - just as we have noted before. And their occupation, in combination with the character of the deed, would have been the main reason.

""The utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being sent out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Enright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue."

Uhum. But this is dated the 3:rd of September, two weeks before Spratling spilled the beans, right? And the combined presence of Spratling AND Abberline at the inquest tells us pretty conclusively that neither J division nor the Yard had spoken to the Buck´s Row people of the souther side of the street, excepting the Greens. This cannot be effectively challenged. Meaning that what we have here is a newspaper report that enthusiastically conveys what a likewise enthusiastic representant of the police has told the reporter.
The "many persons" Enright and Godley had interviewed did not live in the Buck´s Row houses unless the sergeants had been approached by these people, and "the neighbourhood" the plain clothes men were walking through would be the streets and premises adjoining Buck´s Row. And that is all fine, and it does imply that there was police activity, just as there should be. But it does not change the fact that Spratling was reprimanded by the coroner on the 17:th for calling at only ONE (1) house on the row of dwellings lining the street where the killing took place, just as it does not alter Abberline´s presence at that same occasion, an occasion that Abberline let pass by with solemn silence.

The police told the papers that they did all they could and that they had spoken to all sorts of people and that they searched far and wide. What else were they going to say? We have only spoken to very few people in the street? Not very likely, is it? But that was the case just the same.

All the best,
Fisherman