Viability of Charles Cross as the Ripper

[Dan Norder]

I think, however, that by reasoning, Cross must be a slightly more credible killer than Hutch, for the simple reason that we know that he (Cross) spent time alone with Nichols, although the latter would in all probability not have noticed it...

The argument for Cross as a suspect is similar to Hutchinson, in that they both can be placed at a crime scene, but for Cross most of the reasons people have suspected Hutchinson are missing:

1) Cross' testimony was never doubted and/or later ignored by police. (While we don't know that they disagreed with his testimony as compare to deciding it was not relevant or helpful, certainly the possibility that they found errors in it is a key reason people have for suspecting Hutchison.)

2) Cross' statement sounds very matter of fact and plausible, while Hutchinson's features some details that don't ring true.

3) Cross had somewhere to go within the next few minutes (in this murder and theoretically in others if he were involved) and would be far less likely to cover up any blood, etc.

4) Hutchinson by his own account was hanging around spying on someone who became a Ripper victim.

5) Hutchinson only came forward after another witness testified to seeing a mysterious man hanging around the scene of the crime.

6) Hutchinson's account featured a lot of details that could have easily come from previous newspaper reports, while Cross of course did not.

7) Cross was introduced to the police early in the investigation and the murders continued without any sort of interruption afterward.

Everything about Cross as a suspect applies at least equally, and usually more so, to Hutchinson. Hutchinson I think is plausible as a suspect, although of course there are plenty of scenarios that would explain his behavior without making him the killer (he may have been Kelly's pimp, wanting to stay in her room later, hoping to rob the man he says he saw with her, trying for a reward and inventing up details toward that end, and so forth). Cross as the Ripper is a lot more unrealistic, in my opinion.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If the killer felt compelled to do what he did, if he heard "inner voices" and so on, then who are we to say that he would have stayed off the killing for rational reasons?

Well, as I'm sure you're aware, the actions and movements of a serial killer are dictated by a desire to evade capture in spite of whatever compulsion they have to kill. If the "compulsion" factor overrided everthing else, the killer certainly wouldn't evade capture for long. Even the more disorganised and "crazy" killers such as Ed Gein at least took the trouble to seek the opportune moment to visit cemeteries at night when nobody was around, for example.

As for Hutch´s lying, a good deal of it is in the eyes of the beholder

Not with regard to the description. That's just impossible. Serial killer Ivan Milat's eyewitness account was initially chalked up to "photographic memory" before common sense prevailed and it was discovered that Milat was the real killer.

1. In what way is it illegitimate to stand outside the court where a female, perhaps a near aquaintance of yours, lives?

I have plenty of near acquaintances, but if I discovered that one of them approached my home in the small hours of an inclement November night and sustained a "watching and waiting" sentinel outside it, I'd be a little freaked out. No, we can't be sure that he was in Dorset Street, but the fact that his 2:30 "waiting for someone to come out" allegation mirrored Lewis' description of a nocturnal loiterer doing precisely that at the same location and at the same time would tend to rule out the "random coincidence" angle.

And although a number of serial killers have injected themselves into the police investigations of their own deeds, they more often than not refrain from doing so, statistically rendering Hutch even less probable as the killer.

Fish, I don't mind you favouring Cross, but please don't ruin a good post with that last sentence, mate. Anyone who inserts themselves into a police investigation should be compared not with every serial killer out there, but with any serial killer who found himself in a predicament where such pre-emptive action was occasioned, like being seen loitering outside a victim's flat. If nothing of the kind happened, there's no need to "legimitize" their presence, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have tried it on if they were in that situation.

Similarly, if you limit your suspects to what the majority do, you're pretty much ruling out every suspect. No serial killer does what the majority of other serial killers do in every endeavour they embark upon. Wisdom, instead, lies with acknowledging what an appreciable percentage of them do in relation to the number of serial killers we know about. That knowledge is what allows experienced investigators to flush out offenders on occasions, and in the case of killers coming forward under false guises, it is often anticipated.

Good points, Dan, and more succinctly put than me.

Best regards,
Ben

[Septic Blue]

He appears as "Lechmere" on his 1849 birth certificate; his 1871 marriage certificate; his 1920 death certificate; as well as census returns of 1851, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901(?). Likewise, his wife and eight living children (1891) are all recorded in various census returns as "Lechmere", while a ninth child who was born and deceased in 1888, was also named "Lechmere".

His only appearances as "Cross", the name of his stepfather from age eight, occur in the census returns of 1861 (age 11), and during the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder (age 38). Why did he choose to identify himself to investigators, using an alias ??? An explicable alias: But still, an alias !!!




Colin

[Dan Norder]

Hi Colin,

Virtually everyone in the East End had an alias, especially when it was a matter of choosing between a foreign name and a more English-sounding name. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for someone to use the name that fits more into the country in question when questioned by the police or in court. If using an alias or having multiple names makes someone a suspect, then most all the other witnesses, victims and unrelated characters in the East End are equally suspicious.

[Septic Blue]

Hi Dan,

Virtually everyone in the East End had an alias, especially when it was a matter of choosing between a foreign name and a more English-sounding name.

Granted !!! And such practices were by no means unique to London's East End. I would think that it was commonplace throughout blue-collar society in all of Victorian Britain.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable for someone to use the name that fits more into the country in question when questioned by the police or in court.

Nor do I !!! But, Lechmere is a Scottish name, and you would think that a typical Jock would want to boast of his heritage; especially in England.

If using an alias or having multiple names makes someone a suspect, then most all the other witnesses, victims and unrelated characters in the East End are equally suspicious.

It doesn't !!! But it should raise the extra question or two.

"Mary Ann Kelly" of "6 Fashion Street" gave an alias, and was free to go !!!

Charles Allen Lechmere, aka "Charles Cross" must have assumed that he wouldn't get off that easily: Although it would appear that he did.


Colin

[Monty]

Colin,

My Mum is Scots and she never lets her English friends forget about the clearances.

There is nothing more patriotic than a Scotsman in England, apart from a Scotswoman.

Monty

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Interesting points being made. I cant help but think that Cross, and Diemshutz, and Watkins share the distinction of being by the dead women before their death is known by others,...or help is sent for, or arrives.

And I cant see any real reason to suggest suspect status for the other 2.

Hutchinson supposedly is at the scene, not in it, or on it..or over a corpse, so its a different animal.

edit: For some reason Davies and Annie slipped my mind, but of course he had that opportunity too, assuming she wasn't there when Richardson was. Sorry.

Best regards all.

[Fisherman]

Right guys!

Let´s start with Dan Norder. He states “Hutchinson only came forward after another witness testified to seeing a mysterious man hanging around the scene of the crime” and “Hutchinson's account featured a lot of details that could have easily come from previous newspaper reports, while Cross of course did not.”

Exactly, Dan! And that is why I am saying that whereas we with certainty can place Cross at Nichols body, we have to rely on Hutch´s own words that he was in Dorset Street that night. And you must admit that there is some reason to see at least some of his testimony as ramblings.

Moreover, Hutch was somewhere (exactly where has escaped my mind) described as a man of a military appearance. But at the inquest (which Hutch may well have read all about in the papers, Lewis stated: “I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall.”

Not very tall would seem to indicate a shortish man, and a stout one, and “military appearance” more often than not is used about long men. No certainty, no big point – but an indicator telling us that perhaps the man in the wideawake was NOT Hutch. And as we delve deeper into possibilities like this, we are finally left with only one point written in stone: We know that Cross was there! That must govern our thinking more than the words of a man who had obvious difficulties dealing with the truth. Just my five cents, though.

Ben! You write “as I'm sure you're aware, the actions and movements of a serial killer are dictated by a desire to evade capture in spite of whatever compulsion they have to kill”, after which you travel in a slightly other direction by adding “If the "compulsion" factor overrided everthing else, the killer certainly wouldn't evade capture for long”.
Of course a killer could be taken over by “inner voices” and such, and rendered unable to choose safety before striking. It has been shown at numerous occasions, which you will be aware of. And yes, the possibility that he would have been caught would grow in such a case – but it would not grow into any certainty. Have a look at Richard Trenton Chase and you will see what I am talking about. Raving mad, with inner voices telling him that his own blood was turning to sand, meaning that he needed the blood of others… He lasted for a fortnight or so before he was caught. And he was hunted with modern methods, Ben!

So no, believing that Cross would never have gone on to kill and stay uncaught is just a guess - and guesses of course may be wrong.

As for “Anyone who inserts themselves into a police investigation should be compared not with every serial killer out there, but with any serial killer who found himself in a predicament where such pre-emptive action was occasioned, like being seen loitering outside a victim's flat.”, you of course have some sort of point – every case is unique. But as I have pointed out, we can´t even be sure that the man Lewis spoke of WAS Hutch in the first place. And the fact that such an injection as the one we are speaking of IS a very rare thing remains of great weight, I think.

Finally, Ben, your wording: “I don't mind you favouring Cross” only applies if you mean that I favour him over Hutch – that I do. But Cross was NOT the Ripper, the way I see things. The Ripper had been gone a number of minutes as Cross came upon the cooling body of Nichols.

I´m off for skiing tomorrow, so I won´t be able to fight it out any further these next few days. But if you have found the Ripper when I return, it won´t be Cross OR Hutch, believe me…

The best,
Fisherman

[Dan Norder]

Fisherman,

If you'd like to argue for or against Hutchinson, a thread about him as a suspect would be a better choice than here.

[Ben]

Not very tall would seem to indicate a shortish man, and a stout one, and “military appearance” more often than not is used about long men.

No it isn't, Fish - blimey!

A man with a military appearance is likely to be square-built, broad-shouldered and muscular, not tall and rangy.

Raving mad, with inner voices telling him that his own blood was turning to sand, meaning that he needed the blood of others… He lasted for a fortnight or so before he was caught. And he was hunted with modern methods, Ben

Yes, but in spite of his "raving madness", he too went to some effort to evade capture. An assumption that Cross would not have continued killing after that early police exposure is an experience-enriched commonsense deduction rather than a random "guess".

But as I have pointed out, we can´t even be sure that the man Lewis spoke of WAS Hutch in the first place. And the fact that such an injection as the one we are speaking of IS a very rare thing remains of great weight, I think.

No, is isn't, Fish.

It isn't "very rare" at all. If it was "very rare" we wouldn't have as many examples as we do. If it was "very rare", we wouldn't have experienced professionals in the fields anticipating it prior to the capture of the killer and laying snares accordingly with successful results. We can't "prove" that Lewis' man was Hutchinson's, but unless we're willing to embrace the "random coincidence of proximity and timing" hypothesis, there are plentiful and compelling reasons for thinking he was.

But if you have found the Ripper when I return, it won´t be Cross OR Hutch, believe me…

I'm afraid I don't believe you and have absolutely no reason to. Whether Hutchinson was the killer or not, I think he's a likely a suspect as you'll encounter 119 years after the event.

Enjoy skiing!

Best wishes,
Ben

[Barnaby]

I just can't imagine Cross (or anyone) committing such crimes and then continuing on to work. Weekends, yes. Coming home from work, sure. But does anyone know of other serial murderers who killed en route to their place of employment?

[Fisherman]

Dan Norder writes:
"If you'd like to argue for or against Hutchinson, a thread about him as a suspect would be a better choice than here."
Absolutely, Dan. I merely responded to a question asked by Barnaby, involving a comparison between the different viabilities of Cross AND Hutch being the Ripper. But you are of course right; before Hutch takes over the thread totally, let´s move it.

I will only respond to Bens post first, since it sort of belongs to the comparison mentioned.

"A man with a military appearance is likely to be square-built, broad-shouldered and muscular, not tall and rangy."

If so, Ben, then that is a British interpretation, and I have no trouble buying it. In Sweden though, a military appearance means exactly tall and rangy (and for the record, I never mentioned "rangy", but there you are...)

Leaving British military stature aside, this would perhaps appply:
Astrakhan man was somewhere in the vicinity of 5 ft 6, according to Hutch. That makes him close to 170 centimeters, right? And 170 centimeters was not short in them days, meaning that a man of such height would not have been described by Sarah Lewis as a "short" man. By reasoning, Astrakhan man would have been a taller man than the man she saw loitering outside the court.
And Hutch? We don´t know his length. But we do know that as he spoke of his encounter with Astrakhan man, he said "I stooped down and looked him in the face". That seems to imply that he in his turn was a taller man than Astrakhan. In any event, he would NOT have been a short man, for short men do not stoop down to look in the faces of average or over average lenght men, do they?

I will leave the issue of criminals injecting themselves into police investigations aside, since I have a view that differs radically from yours, and since I fully realize that neither man will be swayed by the other.

Instead I will let one of your balls bounce back to you by first quoting "Whether Hutchinson was the killer or not, I think he's a likely a suspect as you'll encounter 119 years after the event" and then adding the next quote:
"I'm afraid I don't believe you and have absolutely no reason to."

I think that there is every possibility that Hutch and Lewis´ loiterer were NOT one and the same. We also know that Abberline believed Hutch from the outset. That means that he was willing to swallow the red handkerchief, the horse-shoe pin and all. He apparently saw nothing strange in it.
But as Hutch was clearly dismissed later on, something must have come up that caused the police to loose interest, and it must have been pretty conclusive. It will NOT have been a matter of Abberline giving his testimony a second thought and arriving at "Hm, well, perhaps not...?" His mind was already made up - the description was approved and therefore it must have been regarded as very useful.
No, something else came along, and that something may well have arrived in the shape of either somebody coming forward to claim the role of Sarah Lewis´ loiterer, or somebody who made it clear to the police that Hutch had been elsewhere during the murder night. Such a thing, I feel, would have resulted in exactly what happened, when the police went from eating from Hutch´s hand to dismissing his story.
Not enough has been said, I think, about the possibility that Hutch´s story was bogus from beginning to end. Although I have always believed that he was there, I think we must ask ourselves what clinches such a supposition. Where is the evidence?
But, Dan, like you said, it´s for another thread, and since my train is leaving this afternoon I will not participate more than over the next few hours, after which it is skiing time - and thank you for cheering me on, Ben; it is a first time for me, so if I do not return to the boards, you will know what happened...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

On the military stature issue, I reread Derek Osbornes dissertation on these boards, and it seems that not only Swedes like myself favour a description of such a thing as something that will not tally with Lewis´man:
"Some commentators on this mystery, have assumed that the man seen by Sarah Lewis must have been George Hutchinson. That assumption must not be taken for granted. For a report in my own local paper, revealed that Hutchinson was 'a man of military appearance'. This description we find does not equate with that given by Sarah Lewis."

All the best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Last Hutchinson-related post before returning to Cross.

If so, Ben, then that is a British interpretation, and I have no trouble buying it. In Sweden though, a military appearance means exactly tall and rangy (and for the record, I never mentioned "rangy", but there you are...)

I'm not sure how "military appearance" can ever mean tall and lean because such a person is unlikely to be very resilient in a trench-like atmosphere. It's one of the reasons "Georgie" from Blackadder Goes Fourth seems so amusingly incongruous with his environment. I often use Titanic victim Major Archie Butt as a good example of a man with military appearance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Archibald_Willingham_Butt.jpg

Quite full faced, and apparently quite fleshy, but straight backed, neatly trimmed moustace and generally oozing a "military appearance".

Lewis described her man not as "short", but as "not tall", in which case a height of 5"6' or 5"7' would seem a reasonable estimate. He allegedly stooped down to peer under the shadow of the man's hat which was "over his eyes", which would indicate a height similar to that of Mr. Astrakhan. Of course, if he lied about the encounter (hey, there's a thought!), it seems likely that the dimensions and heights in relation to Astrakhan were confused or invented anyway.

I will leave the issue of criminals injecting themselves into police investigations aside, since I have a view that differs radically from yours

Which I find most odd, but okay...

No, something else came along, and that something may well have arrived in the shape of either somebody coming forward to claim the role of Sarah Lewis´ loiterer, or somebody who made it clear to the police that Hutch had been elsewhere during the murder night

Actually, Fish, they didn't need anything conclusive and decisive. Maxwell was dismissed just as Hutchinson was, but not because of anything concrete that proved her wrong or lying. It was merely a police consensus of opinion based on the totality of evidence. If nothing concrete was required to dismiss Maxwell, why should we expect anything concrete to dismiss Hutchinson?

However, if there was anything tangible, if was probably the newspaper versions of his testimony that ran so contrary to his initial statement. This may have been the catalyst for the ultimate police decision that all was not well with his story, particularly the claim to have found a policeman on Sunday who ignored his evidence. That sort of thing can be proven false very quickly, and it is likely than it was, with Hutchinson being discarded as a consequence. The fact that the earlist indications of Hutchinson's discrediting came after those press disclosures lend support for the hypothesis.

Since any solitary Victoria Homie isn't likely to have had such a rich and varied social life that friends and neighbours could recollect his exact movements and actions for a fleeting moment in the small hours a specific November evening, the notion that Hutchinson had an alibi is rendered unlikely. Similarly, the very idea that he wasn't there at all is offset by Lewis' evidence of someone "watching and waiting" at the same spot and at the same time that Hutchinson claimed to be "watching and waiting".

Now go skiing and stay safe!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

....and off we go! To the Hutch thread "Proof of identity".

See you there, Ben!

Fisherman