The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John G]

Hi after some help from another member, many thanks David, I have been able to read the apparent quote Fisherman was referring to in post #1004.

The source would appear to be in The East London Advertiser 1st September 1888:

"The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. "


This does not appear to be a direct quote from Neil, there is certainly no indication of any quotes being used. nor any indication that this report is the result of Neil being interviewed as implied in post #1004.

Therefore while it is indeed an early report, we can have no idea if it is based on anything which Neil may or may not have said.


One little issue cleared up.



Steve

The report, which the newspaper relies upon, comes from the Central News Agency. However, early reports from this source were not always reliable: http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881121.html

Moreover, I don't see how such reports can possibly take precedence over what the press reported as being stated at the inquest. And, of course, in this regard PC Neil is directly quoted as using the word "oozing" to describe the flow of blood from the neck, with no mention of the adverb "profusely". http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

[Elamarna]

Thanks John.

All helps me with my Bucks Row project


Steve

The report, which the newspaper relies upon, comes from the Central News Agency. However, early reports from this source were not always reliable: http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881121.html

Moreover, I don't see how such reports can possibly take precedence over what the press reported as being stated at the inquest. And, of course, in this regard PC Neil is directly quoted as using the word "oozing" to describe the flow of blood from the neck, with no mention of the adverb "profusely". http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

[drstrange169]

Hello Steve,

Back in post #1004 Christer said,

"As I have said before, the initital interviews - discareded by people who prefer "oozed" - have Neil saying that the wound bled "profusely"."

Interviews plural, I've asked him to cite these, more than one interviews, but alas he doesn't answer the difficult questions.

To be clear, I've never come across an "interview" with Neil ... full stop!.

We do have newspaper coverage of his testimony at the inquest. We do have second or third hand accounts of what happened that night, but can anyone point me to the "interviews" Christer claims exist?

[Elamarna]

Hello Steve,

Back in post #1004 Christer said,

"As I have said before, the initital interviews - discareded by people who prefer "oozed" - have Neil saying that the wound bled "profusely"."

Interviews plural, I've asked him to cite these, more than one interviews, but alas he doesn't answer the difficult questions.

To be clear, I've never come across an "interview" with Neil ... full stop!.

We do have newspaper coverage of his testimony at the inquest. We do have second or third hand accounts of what happened that night, but can anyone point me to the "interviews" Christer claims exist?

Hi Dusty,

I have been trawling the press reports on Bucks Row for the last 3-4 months and had never seen an interview with Neil either.
That was why I asked Christer, if the quote he posted was what he alluding to, as I was already aware that this was from Mizen.

This thread has allowed me to comment on something which I have been aware of for several months, but was not ready to post as the full work is not complete. That is that Mizen's statements are worthless with regards to the "Blood Evidence" relating to the time of the murder and thus placing Lechmere at the "eye of the storm " as it has been claimed.

:
What the thread has allowed to be demonstrated is that either:

1. The science which this theory is based on is wrong and active flow does not stop in as short a time as 3-5 minutes, and if blood can really flow profusely for up to 20 minutes from such wounds this type of evidence can never be useful in determining a TOD.

(Personally I feel that the basic science has given by Payne-James is correct; Unfortunately the evidence/statements of witness's have not I believe been interpreted correctly.).


2. Mizen is wrong and blood was not flowing, or his comments about blood still running from the neck have been interpreted incorrectly.
If however he really meant it was still flowing, that does cast a whole new light on the reliability of any evidence he gave that night, as his statement is so at odds with the medical science.



There is a difference however with Neil, the timings are such that he may have found Nichols bleeding; however his statements which have been discussed here and many times before do not appear to back that up.

It is possible, that the other wounds, particularly if Fisherman is correct that the abdomen wounds came first, may have lead to a reduction in the bleed time. that is what I have still not reached a conclusion on.


To put it simply and clearly

While Neil seeing flowing blood is possible and needs to be fully explored; the suggestion that Mizen also saw this flow is just not realistic, indeed it is not scientifically viable.




Steve

[drstrange169]

>>I have been trawling the press reports on Bucks Row for the last 3-4 months and had never seen an interview with Neil either.<<


Christer has fled to another site where the debate is centred on semantics, a subject he has always been more comfortable with, rather than dealing with facts.



>>... Mizen's statements are worthless with regards to the "Blood Evidence" relating to the time of the murder and thus placing Lechmere at the "eye of the storm " as it has been claimed.<<

Not worthless to Christer, as it muddies the water and hinders serious debate about the issue.




>>1. The science which this theory is based on is wrong and active flow does not stop in as short a time as 3-5 minutes, and if blood can really flow profusely for up to 20 minutes from such wounds this type of evidence can never be useful in determining a TOD.<<

As we now have Payne-James actual wording to Christer, it is clear that he is highlighting the problem that faces us all. There is not enough forensic evidence to make definitive statements about timings.



>>It is possible, that the other wounds, particularly if Fisherman is correct that the abdomen wounds came first, may have lead to a reduction in the bleed time. that is what I have still not reached a conclusion on.<<

It was a Llewellyn who first postulated the idea that wounds to the stomach came first, but then he also postulated that Mrs Nichols was murdered elsewhere. It seems he changed his mind on both issues.

It does, however, remain a theory worthy further investigation.

[Patrick S]

Neil didn´t call to Thain and Mizen - he used his lamp to signal them down. For example. But I digress. As I said, if you want to point to James Green, then you are welcome.

I see. So the men gathered around the dead body communicated in sign language and whispers so as not to wake up the neighbors? I think it's safe to say there was some level of noise on the street that would have awoken a "light sleeper", lying just a few feet from the dead body. It's not credible to argue otherwise.

I do want to point to James Green. However, I don't actually believe he was Jack the Ripper. Rather, as I stated earlier, he serves as a useful device in demonstrating how simple a thing it can be to associate an individual's connection to even the most tangential aspect of the murders, one particular murder (Lechmere, Richardson) a relationship with a victim (Hutchinson, Barnett), some associated procedural task (Mann), or someone of celebrity who lived in that time and place (Prince Albert Victor, Walter Sickert, Lewis Carrol, Francis Thompson).

The creators of "theories" like these can always credibly argue that we cannot get any of these "suspects off of the hook". Consequently, no matter how many dependencies, hidden motivations, acts of providence, Mizen scams, and happy accidents we must assume took place in order to make any of the above names (and many others) into Jack the Ripper, one can always argue that it cannot be PROVEN that (insert name here) WAS NOT a serial killer.

The point is simple: James Green makes a far better "suspect" than Charles Lechmere, and I think there is an almost zero percent chance that he killed Nichols or was Jack the Ripper.

The evidence tells us that Nichols' throat had not been cut when Lechmere and Paul were in Buck's Row because their testimony tells us that they observed no blood, saw no wounds. We even have reason to suspect that Nichols may have been barely alive when the "carmen" came along. Paul tells us he detected a slight movement. We know Green was - physically - mere feet from the spot where Nichols was killed. His mother's testimony tells us he WAS there. We have Paul telling us he helped to "pull down" Nichols' "disarranged" clothing. Yet we have Neil telling us that the victim's clothing was "disarranged" when he came along a few moments later. Based on this testimony it is a near certainty that someone strangled Nichols unconscious, hid close by as Paul and Lechmere inspected his victim, emerged when they left, cut Nichols throat, "disarranged" her clothing in order to perform mutilations to her abdomen, and simply disappeared, unseen. I think it's reasonable to assume that the killer was able to retreat to a place in which he felt quite safe between the time Lechmere and Paul left Buck's Row and the time Neil entered, a span of time which could not have been more than five, seven minutes. We know that Green's home was - quite literally - located UPON the spot where Nichols died.

We also know that Green was quick to clean the pavement upon the removal of Nichols' body. Why? What does this act tell us? Did he not want his mother to see evidence of his crime? After sating his desire to kill did he not wish to be reminded of what he'd done? Did he just want to be "involved" in some way? To flaunt his crime and his ability to avoid detection? We know that Green was a psychopath because he likely killed Nichols and was Jack the Ripper (an argument you've used to explain the Mizen scam and Lechmere's risky behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest). Thus, I suggest that he WAS, in fact, inserting himself in order to taunt the police. Not only had he killed the woman in front of his own home, he'd taken the time to clean up his mess in full view of the everyone.

You once wrote on this forum that we should view the crimes with eye "Lechmere being guilty". If we view the crimes with "an eye on (Green) being guilty", if we consider his home was quite literally, at the center of the murder radius, and if Nichols WAS his first victim she was killed literally on his doorstep, and that the "blood evidence" tells us that Nichols' wounds were still "oozing" and "running" when Neil came along, I suggest that we've got a strong prima facie case against James Green, AKA Jack the Ripper.

[MysterySinger]

And here's something I wrote last year on another thread....

I'll throw in another thought which may fit, especially in a scenario where the abdominal injuries were inflicted first and caused the near death of Polly. The killer was still there but hiding from sight having been disturbed by the approach of Lechmere. When the carmen were out of range, he went back to the woman and slashed the neck before making good his getaway - likely as not in the direction of Brady Street. Or, if he lived or worked in one of the buildings close by, that could have made things easier for him. Perhaps he felt the need to be absolutely sure that Polly would be unable to provide a description, or even a name because she may have known him.

At least one of the horse slaughterer's lived very close by too (though would have been at work).

[Pcdunn]

Interesting discussion

I still like Robert Paul for it. He was at least a"person of interest" to the police, as they had to go look him up.

[Elamarna]

And here's something I wrote last year on another thread....

I'll throw in another thought which may fit, especially in a scenario where the abdominal injuries were inflicted first and caused the near death of Polly. The killer was still there but hiding from sight having been disturbed by the approach of Lechmere. When the carmen were out of range, he went back to the woman and slashed the neck before making good his getaway - likely as not in the direction of Brady Street. Or, if he lived or worked in one of the buildings close by, that could have made things easier for him. Perhaps he felt the need to be absolutely sure that Polly would be unable to provide a description, or even a name because she may have known him.

At least one of the horse slaughterer's lived very close by too (though would have been at work).

Hi

Interesting ideas, he could easily I beleive have been hiding however I personally think he had gone.
The major issues with the abdomen wounds are that from the somewhat limited reports we have there is no indication at all of any major blood vessels being cut.
Obviously there were cuts through the skin and muscle, but no mention of any cuts to any interior organs or vessels..
The wounds themselves are indeed severe and the amount of blood loss should not be underestimated.
And this is causing me ongoing problems in evaluating blood flow rate from the neck.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Hi

Interesting ideas, he could easily I beleive have been hiding however I personally think he had gone.
The major issues with the abdomen wounds are that from the somewhat limited reports we have there is no indication at all of any major blood vessels being cut.
Obviously there were cuts through the skin and muscle, but no mention of any cuts to any interior organs or vessels..
The wounds themselves are indeed severe and the amount of blood loss should not be underestimated.
And this is causing me ongoing problems in evaluating blood flow rate from the neck.


Steve

I agree that the killer - who's name is very likely completely unknown to us -was gone, having killed Nichols and inflicted all of the wounds.

However, the suggestion that the killer may have been hiding in the shadows close by, or safely indoors, peering out until the coast was clear, only to pop out and finish the job when Paul and Cross had gone isn't absurd or out of the question.

Further, suggestions such as this demonstrate how you can play these sorts of games with almost any name among any of the witnesses of any of the Ripper killings. If we do not have firm evidence corroborating that a person was somewhere else at the time of the crime then we can create a suspect, almost out of whole cloth. All we have do is craft a narrative that cannot be disproven from 130 years on, assume some sinister back-story or dastardly motive, implausibility is no barrier, so long as your willing to debate those who disagree, stick to your guns, and enlist someone, ANYONE, to say they agree....or at least they don't disagree.

In my view this is what Christer has done quite admirably with his Lechmere theory. Don't get me wrong. I don't have an issue with any of it. Quite the opposite. As I've said, I find the discussions productive and stimulating, and once we (and by we I mean "I") manage to gain some perspective, quite fun. I hope he returns to the board soon because it's immeasurably better when he's here.

In the end, we can only assume that we do not know much of anything about why Lechmere gave the name Cross at the inquest. Christer can tell us that the man used the name Lechmere exclusively when dealing with "authority", even when we have nothing tell us that he was ever accused of or arrested for any crime in his lifetime. I can just as easily suggest that he gave the name Lechmere as well as the name Cross and that Cross is simply what made it into the papers (along with an incorrect first name (George)). I can suggest that he gave the name Cross because his stepfather was a policeman and he was known to some still on the force as Thomas Cross's son. He was almost certainly never legally Charles Cross, but he was known by that name when his mother was married to Thomas Cross. I can suggest the name was simply easier and most people knew him by it, so he went by it. I can suggest that he gave the name Cross because NO ONE knew him by that name and he was a nervous fellow by nature and asked the coroner and police to call him by that name to avoid publicizing his involvement for the killer to see and possibly harm him or one of his ten kids, or his wife. All can be argued against. And all are possible.

The real issue I have with the theory is the level of invention and assumption required to explain Lechmere's behavior. He behaves - quite apparently - as an innocent man. He approaches Paul. He inspects the body with him. He goes with him to find a PC. He tells the PC where to go to find the body. He shows at the inquest without having been asked his name, where he lived, where he worked. No description of him is given. Yet, he appears first thing Monday morning. NONE of these facts are in dispute. But, the amount of assumption, the number of hidden motivations, non-intuitive responses to events required to explain these actions as something other than the normal actions of a man who DID NOT KILL SOMEONE is a bridge to far for me.

Further, if we add to this what we know of the man. We have no arrest record, no accusations, no evidence he was ever violent in his life. He died in his bed in 1920, in his seventies. Therefore, we must have him as the Torso Killer (among other killers) because he cannot simply have stopped killing. More invention required.

When we have killings that don't fit into the his route to work we say he was visiting his mother. More invention. When times don't line-up we say he took a stroll while his cart was being unloaded. More invention.

My goal is not to disparage the theory, although that's an unavoidable by-product. My intent is simply to make it clear that we can do this kind of thing with nearly ANYONE who's name appears in any media report, any case file, anything related to the Ripper. This is the same sort of thing that enables far more ridiculous "suspects" such as Sickert, Carroll, etc. to be put forward for fun and profit. No one can PROVE his was NOT the Ripper, after all.

[Elamarna]

In my view this is what Christer has done quite admirably with his Lechmere theory. Don't get me wrong. I don't have an issue with any of it. Quite the opposite. As I've said, I find the discussions productive and stimulating, and once we (and by we I mean "I") manage to gain some perspective, quite fun. I hope he returns to the board soon because it's immeasurably better when he's here.

I agree with you on all of that, the amount of work and research put in is astounding and yes he has defended his theory well at times.

Yes the discussions have been very productive from my point of view, It has got me looking at the Torso murders, which I would not have done otherwise. And it is lead me to research the whole of the Bucks Row murder in great detail. This research, allowed me pose the time lines and seriously question the statement of PC Mizen at the weekend.

It is a great shame that Christer has, for what ever reason, decided not attempt to address the serious points I made here.

Like you I hope he returns soon.

. I can suggest that he gave the name Cross because his stepfather was a policeman and he was known to some still on the force as Thomas Cross's son. He was almost certainly never legally Charles Cross, but he was known by that name when his mother was married to Thomas Cross.
I can suggest the name was simply easier and most people knew him by it, so he went by it.

I have given that very reason myself, several times over a number of threads, strangely while Christer often addresses some of the reasons the name Cross may have been used, he does not attempt to answer that one.

I can suggest that he gave the name Cross because NO ONE knew him by that name and he was a nervous fellow by nature and asked the coroner and police to call him by that name to avoid publicizing his involvement for the killer to see and possibly harm him or one of his ten kids, or his wife. All can be argued against. And all are possible.

Of course perfectly plausible

The real issue I have with the theory is the level of invention and assumption required to explain Lechmere's behavior. He behaves - quite apparently - as an innocent man. He approaches Paul. He inspects the body with him. He goes with him to find a PC. He tells the PC where to go to find the body. He shows at the inquest without having been asked his name, where he lived, where he worked. No description of him is given. Yet, he appears first thing Monday morning. NONE of these facts are in dispute. But, the amount of assumption, the number of hidden motivations, non-intuitive responses to events required to explain these actions as something other than the normal actions of a man who DID NOT KILL SOMEONE is a bridge to far for me.

Patrick,
while I have raised many of those concerns myself, I have even now not discounted Lechmere as a suspect.

I said back in October that Lechmere was viable for the Nichols murder, and that has not changed.
However it is fair to say that the evidence relied on and called "Blood Evidence" is in my opinion, having researched in depth, far less significant than is suggested; particularly when much of the theory is based on MIzen's statements.
The Statements which I believe I have shown cannot be judged as viable, if the theory of the "blood evidence" is sound; either Mizen is correct or the theory that blood will stop flowing after a few minutes is.
They cannot both be correct.


(Christer is happy to allow up to about 7 minutes, or rather that is the figure he quotes from Payne-James. Mizen's statements may have been based on what he saw 20 minutes after the attack and certainly no sooner than 10 minutes.).




Steve

[Sam Flynn]

either Mizen is correct or the theory that blood will stop flowing after a few minutes is. They cannot both be correct.

A large volume of blood simply won't congeal to the extent that it cannot flow within a mere 7 minutes. So Mizen is correct.

[Patrick S]

Patrick,
while I have raised many of those concerns myself, I have even now not discounted Lechmere as a suspect.

I said back in October that Lechmere was viable for the Nichols murder, and that has not changed.

Steve

I don't necessarily disagree. Although, I think I may be somewhat unique in that I cannot help but use quotations when I write the word "suspect", as I find it somewhat difficult to consider someone a "suspect" in crimes committed 129 years ago. Honestly, we have seen so many "suspects" come and go over the years that I fear I've become a confirmed skeptic, with my first reaction to news that JtR's identity has been determined being, "Not again!". And my first reaction has yet to be proven wrong. Druitt. Maybrick. Sickert. The Shawl. Tell me another one.

If a solution ever comes, if someone proposes a theory, offering a "suspect" that may be in the least convincing, I believe there will be no need to try and decipher statements or actions. We won't have to invent "scams" or reasons why someone may have done or said this or that. I remain convinced that this is simple folly after nearly 130 years. Any "evidence" will be simple, not easily contradicted, and not open to a lot of interpretation.

But....I'm convinced no "suspect" will ever come that fits that bill.

[John G]

I see. So the men gathered around the dead body communicated in sign language and whispers so as not to wake up the neighbors? I think it's safe to say there was some level of noise on the street that would have awoken a "light sleeper", lying just a few feet from the dead body. It's not credible to argue otherwise.

I do want to point to James Green. However, I don't actually believe he was Jack the Ripper. Rather, as I stated earlier, he serves as a useful device in demonstrating how simple a thing it can be to associate an individual's connection to even the most tangential aspect of the murders, one particular murder (Lechmere, Richardson) a relationship with a victim (Hutchinson, Barnett), some associated procedural task (Mann), or someone of celebrity who lived in that time and place (Prince Albert Victor, Walter Sickert, Lewis Carrol, Francis Thompson).

The creators of "theories" like these can always credibly argue that we cannot get any of these "suspects off of the hook". Consequently, no matter how many dependencies, hidden motivations, acts of providence, Mizen scams, and happy accidents we must assume took place in order to make any of the above names (and many others) into Jack the Ripper, one can always argue that it cannot be PROVEN that (insert name here) WAS NOT a serial killer.

The point is simple: James Green makes a far better "suspect" than Charles Lechmere, and I think there is an almost zero percent chance that he killed Nichols or was Jack the Ripper.

The evidence tells us that Nichols' throat had not been cut when Lechmere and Paul were in Buck's Row because their testimony tells us that they observed no blood, saw no wounds. We even have reason to suspect that Nichols may have been barely alive when the "carmen" came along. Paul tells us he detected a slight movement. We know Green was - physically - mere feet from the spot where Nichols was killed. His mother's testimony tells us he WAS there. We have Paul telling us he helped to "pull down" Nichols' "disarranged" clothing. Yet we have Neil telling us that the victim's clothing was "disarranged" when he came along a few moments later. Based on this testimony it is a near certainty that someone strangled Nichols unconscious, hid close by as Paul and Lechmere inspected his victim, emerged when they left, cut Nichols throat, "disarranged" her clothing in order to perform mutilations to her abdomen, and simply disappeared, unseen. I think it's reasonable to assume that the killer was able to retreat to a place in which he felt quite safe between the time Lechmere and Paul left Buck's Row and the time Neil entered, a span of time which could not have been more than five, seven minutes. We know that Green's home was - quite literally - located UPON the spot where Nichols died.

We also know that Green was quick to clean the pavement upon the removal of Nichols' body. Why? What does this act tell us? Did he not want his mother to see evidence of his crime? After sating his desire to kill did he not wish to be reminded of what he'd done? Did he just want to be "involved" in some way? To flaunt his crime and his ability to avoid detection? We know that Green was a psychopath because he likely killed Nichols and was Jack the Ripper (an argument you've used to explain the Mizen scam and Lechmere's risky behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest). Thus, I suggest that he WAS, in fact, inserting himself in order to taunt the police. Not only had he killed the woman in front of his own home, he'd taken the time to clean up his mess in full view of the everyone.

You once wrote on this forum that we should view the crimes with eye "Lechmere being guilty". If we view the crimes with "an eye on (Green) being guilty", if we consider his home was quite literally, at the center of the murder radius, and if Nichols WAS his first victim she was killed literally on his doorstep, and that the "blood evidence" tells us that Nichols' wounds were still "oozing" and "running" when Neil came along, I suggest that we've got a strong prima facie case against James Green, AKA Jack the Ripper.

Cross explained at the inquest why he thought the victim wasn't seriously injured, and why he hadn't noticed that the throat was cut: "because of the night being very dark."

[Patrick S]

Cross explained at the inquest why he thought the victim wasn't seriously injured, and why he hadn't noticed that the throat was cut: "because of the night being very dark."

Which proves?