Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[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]

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 Buck´s 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 Buck´s 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

[lynn cates]

family

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

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[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.

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Lechmere. Don't want to highjack, but the story contains several errors.

1. JI was not released until over a year later.

2. He had no brother in the country to vouch for him.

3. There is no corresponding MEPO report attesting to ANY of the story.

Your idea is shared by both Evans and Rumbelow on the one hand and Sugden on the other--JI was suspected UNTIL the "Double Event."

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

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.

[Lechmere]

Lynn
I am a little annoyed at not being familiar with the Star report of 21st sept which seems to me exonerates Isenschmid prior to the double event (hence my delay in replying as I wanted to check other sources). It isn't a very big deal for my theory as Isenschmid was most certainly suspect no 1 fir about a week and shows how police prejudices worked (mad foreigner).
Out of interest do you disregard this report and if so why?

[Cogidubnus]

The Police were roundly criticised for their sloppy conduct of the Nichols case

The police were roundly criticised by virtually everyone (politicians, the press, Wynne Baxter, Uncle Tom Cobley and all) throughout the ripper murders. However, the presence of criticism doesn't necessarily make it true...

It looks like we'll have to agree to differ!

All the very best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Dave
The Police were roundly criticised for their sloppy conduct of the Nichols case - including leaving Nichols's body alone and in the care of two semi-decrepid workhouse attendants.
They seemed to have taken some time to track down Paul despite knowing roughly where he lived, his name, the road where he worked (which is a small road) and the nature of his job.
There is nothing to suggest they would have visited Cross at his home and I would re-emphasise that his real name would certainly have come to light should they have done so.

Mike
Who are you caling a dumn ass?

[The Good Michael]

Might also be puns, pathos or parody.

Maybe I always liked Dumas. Pathos was the underrated musketeer in my opinion.

Mike

[lynn cates]

He was vicious.

Hello Michael.

"I just read an article written by a Brit that says Americans don't understand irony. I'd call it satire."

Might also be puns, pathos or parody.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

or the rapid washing away of the blood evidence, or the lack of control of the crime scene with passers by coming and going in the immediate aftermath of the discovery.

Hi Lechmere

The above wouldn't have seemed defective to the police in the LVP - their imperative was to get the body away, clean up the crime scene and keep everything as low key as possible...thus, it was reasoned, keeping public order...and, after all, in an age before forensics, apart from a search for more obvious clues, what else was there to do?

The mortuary attendants washing the body were out of order - however, in doing so they were actually going against explicit instructions from Detective Sergeant Enright, and you can't really hold the police responsible for that...it would seem from this and the casual discarding of the clothing (which the police recovered) that Whitechapel Mortuary was a pretty slack old ship!

In other words I don't think the police investigation was quite as careless as you seem to be implying; they did, after all, track down Paul and follow up with him, and to me, this suggests they wouldn't have neglected to follow up on Cross either (notwithstanding his coming forward far more readily)...after all, other than hearsay stories, what other real clues were there to pursue?

All the best

Dave

[The Good Michael]

Irony, I trust, mike

I don't know. I just read an article written by a Brit that says Americans don't understand irony. I'd call it satire. I suppose. Bu the way, I like the way your arguments are shoring up the suspect. It makes me think... which I don't usually do.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Anyone can hypothesize."

Yep. Some better. Some worse. And ...

" Anyone can conjure something sinister from perfectly innocent events."

Not really. It is a lot simpler to accept that what people tell you is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All you have to decide for yourself is whether you want to be called overinventive or naïve.

Over and out,

Fisherman