Viability of Charles Cross as the Ripper

[John Wheat]

Hi Barnaby!

To begin with, Charles Cross was actually not found standing over the body of Nichols - he was standing in the middle of the street as Robert Paul passed by, alerting the latter to come with him to take a closer look at the body. I know that Connor challenges this, but I think he does so with poor evidence - more on that later!

However, the answer to your question whether it would have been possible to commit the kind of mutilations inflicted on the victims, and afterwards go to job unnoticed, will be an answer that differs with the differing victims.
In Chapmans case, no, it would probably not be possible, since he would have had a considerable amount of blood on his hands. But in the Nichols case, I believe that he may not have had a single drop of blood on him as he left.

So, is Cross a viable suspect? Well, he is a man that we can put on the murder spot, and that means that we cannot rule him out. My own feeling, though, is that if he had been the Ripper, then the obvious position he would have been in as he first heard Pauls´ footsteps, would have been kneeling at Nichols´ body. And if so, he would have been faced with the task of tucking away a much bloodied knife (no weapon was found at the site, and the only obvious reason for this would have been that the killer brought his knife with him, away from the murder spot).
After having concealed the knife, he would then have risen from the body, and stepped a few paces out into the street, where Robert Paul came upon him. If this was what he did, I think we must accept that he did so because he did not want to arouse the suspicion that he himself was the killer.

If we accept all of this, it rises a question or two:

Cross heard Paul before he saw him in the darkness of Buck´s Row. That means he did not know to whom the sound of the steps belonged. And one good guess at that time in the morning would have been a policeman. And if a policeman found a man standing close to the body of a murdered woman, he would undoubtedly have searched that man, producing the knife – and that would have been it.

Now, let´s for theory´s sake assume that Cross for some reason actually knew that the steps did not belong to a policeman. Let´s make the assumption I threw forward earlier: that Cross realized that trying to make a run for it would have given him away.
Then why would he leave the murder spot in company with Paul, looking for a policeman? The obvious thing, since Paul knew not from what end Cross had entered Bucks Row, would have been to say ”You go that way, and I´ll go this way, and that will double our chances of finding a policeman swiftly. Of course, it would also provide the knife-carrying Cross with an excellent opportunity to escape.

All of this points – at least to my mind – very clearly to Cross NOT being the Ripper.

Since Connors tries to place Cross close to the body of Nichols in his dissertation, I think that the report from the inquest provides useful reading. These are the relevant parts:

"Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp."

”Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway. He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman. Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away.”

Meaning what? Meaning that Cross WAS in the middle of the road as Paul approached. He (Cross) then took a few steps to the pavement, on which Paul obviously was walking. In all probability Cross had set or was setting foot on the pavement as Paul came up to him, since the latter chose to step out into the street to pass Cross, who in his turn reached out and touched Pauls shoulder, stopping him.

Another part of the testimony that is telling is that Paul says that he, alerted to the situation by Cross, felt her (Nichols´) hands and face, and they were cold. And if ew accept that the Ripper moved on from neck-cutting to mutilation as swiftly as possible – and the evidence existing points very much to this – then how could Nichols body have grown cold it the very short time transpired?

The best,
Fisherman

I agree with all this Fisherman, Cross was not the Ripper.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree with all this Fisherman, Cross was not the Ripper.

Fisherman argues well here, that Charles Cross is not the Ripper.
However, he overlooks a critical issue.

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

Lewis Deimschitz called, and examined.-I live at 40, Berner-street, and am steward of the International Working Men's Club. I am married, and my wife lives there too. She assists in the management of the club. I left home about half-past eleven on Saturday morning, and returned home exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at Harris's tobacco shop at the corner of Commercial-road and Berner-street. It was one o'clock. I had a barrow, something like a costermonger's, with me. I was sitting in it, and a pony was drawing it. It is a two-wheeled barrow. The pony is kept at George-yard, Cable-street. I do not keep it in the yard of the club. I was driving home to leave my goods. I drove into the yard. Both gates were wide open. It was rather dark there. I drove in as usual, and, all at once, as I came into the gate, my pony shied to the left. That caused me to turn my head down to the ground on my right to see what it was that had made him shy.

The critical issue being: The first man to use the word 'exactly', in reference to time, wins the argument.

Apparently, a key witness using the word 'exactly' when stating a time, has such a powerful effect that it effectively overrides the related times, stated by experienced police constables, as well as responsible members of the public.

The effect of this word is even more powerful when combined with a claim to have very recently observed a clock, prior to the incident in question, as is the case with Diemschitz.

If Paul had said 'It was about a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work...', and Diemschitz had said '[I] returned home around one o'clock on Sunday morning', Ripperology might have evolved very differently.

In each of these cases, we should be aware of how the pseudo-precision of these statements has had the effect of manipulating perceptions, and creating false realities.

Was this done purposely, in each case? I think most likely, yes.

I regard Robert Paul as a suspicious character.

[Harry D]

I agree with all this Fisherman, Cross was not the Ripper.

What compelled you to bump a thread from over a decade?

[John Wheat]

What compelled you to bump a thread from over a decade?

I just noticed Fisherman had contradicted himself which I found amusing

[Fisherman]

Fisherman argues well here, that Charles Cross is not the Ripper.
However, he overlooks a critical issue.





The critical issue being: The first man to use the word 'exactly', in reference to time, wins the argument.

Apparently, a key witness using the word 'exactly' when stating a time, has such a powerful effect that it effectively overrides the related times, stated by experienced police constables, as well as responsible members of the public.

The effect of this word is even more powerful when combined with a claim to have very recently observed a clock, prior to the incident in question, as is the case with Diemschitz.

If Paul had said 'It was about a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work...', and Diemschitz had said '[I] returned home around one o'clock on Sunday morning', Ripperology might have evolved very differently.

In each of these cases, we should be aware of how the pseudo-precision of these statements has had the effect of manipulating perceptions, and creating false realities.

Was this done purposely, in each case? I think most likely, yes.

I regard Robert Paul as a suspicious character.

No, it does not mean that you are right when you add "exactly" to a timing. But since Paul did say "exactly", it would be odd if he was not working from a timepiece, and therefore his timing becomes more credible than it would have been if he had said "I think it may have been 3.45 or thereabouts" or something such.

It really is not very hard at all. "Exactly" - makes a correct timing more credible but does not guarantee it. "Thereabouts" - makes a timing less credible that "exactly" does - but may nevertheless be more correct in practice.

The real problem here is that an effort is made to make me look as if I spread falsehoods and make claims that cannot be substantiated. But I don´t. I am not saying that Pauls "exactly" guarantees that he was right, the way that you try to lead on in your post. I am saying that it enhances the probability that he was right on account of how it seems he had made a check with a timepiece.

It is basically two different ways of doing Ripperology. You either try to make your case as best as you can, going on the facts. Or you distort what people who do that are saying. Apparently, you prefer the latter approach.

[drstrange169]

>> What compelled you to bump a thread from over a decade?<<

I assume, because NBFN found it contains pre-convertion Christer.

[Fisherman]

Yes, whaddayouknow: People seem to reach their stances as they move along. That must mean that I was not born believing in Lechmere as the Ripper, and only arrived at that conclusion later in life.

Who would have thought it?

PS. You can find posts where I argue that Stride was probably not a Ripper victim too, if you put your mind to it. DS.

[drstrange169]

I've been here since the 1990's, I'm well aware of others, not just you, changing their views. I've never had problem with that.

When it come to Mrs Stride I've never been sure whether she was or wasn't.

[Fisherman]

All knowledge is about adjusting to the forthcoming facts, so we better change when it’ s called for...

As for Stride, one cannot be sure whether she was or was not a Ripper victim. We can weigh up the evidence and come to whatever conclusion we think fits the evidence best, but that´s as far as it goes.

[Abby Normal]

so fish changed his mind. it happens as people learn and new things come to light. which is more than i can say for most people here.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, it does not mean that you are right when you add "exactly" to a timing. But since Paul did say "exactly", it would be odd if he was not working from a timepiece, and therefore his timing becomes more credible than it would have been if he had said "I think it may have been 3.45 or thereabouts" or something such.

Only if the 'exact' time given, is credible.

PC Thain: Nothing attracted my attention until 3.45 a.m., when I was signalled by another constable in Buck's-row. I went to him and found him standing by the body of a woman.

This has a credibility issue:

Robert Paul: It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was.

Or does 'exactly a quarter to four' trump '3.45 a.m.'?
And who should we trust when a conflict like this arises - an unknown carman or an experienced beat constable?

The same question arises in the case of Dutfield's Yard - do we put more trust into a well regarded constable, to record and recall the time accurately, or the steward of a politically radical men's club, who claims to have discovered a murdered woman, when alone?
And before you let me know, consider that 'record' is just as important here as 'recall':

[TT1006] PC Smith: When I saw deceased lying on the ground I recognized her at once and made a report of what I had seen.

So Smith made a report of the event as he saw it, minutes after it occurred.
Common sense dictates the report would have included the time.
In comparison, when did Paul and Diemschitz give their recollections of the time? - hours later to some reporter on the way home from work in the first case, and more than 30 hours and many interviews later, in the second.

It really is not very hard at all. "Exactly" - makes a correct timing more credible but does not guarantee it. "Thereabouts" - makes a timing less credible that "exactly" does - but may nevertheless be more correct in practice.

So is this just a little less credible, than what Paul had said to the pressman on the day of the murder?...

[MA0918] Paul: I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's-row I saw a man standing in the roadway.

If Paul's 'exactly a quarter to four' quote did not occur, or was not available, would we still suppose that his recall of the time was more credible than Cross's?
Are we really going to send Charles Lechmere to the gallows, on the basis of a single word?

[DT0904]
Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Cross: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

How does Cross know that he is 'behind time' without a timepiece of his own, or at least a clock to look at?
What is he relying on to let him know that he needs to get a move on - a sundial perhaps?

At the inquest, Cross speaks in a natural manner, without sounding artificially precise...

[DT0918] Paul: Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman.

The real problem here is that an effort is made to make me look as if I spread falsehoods and make claims that cannot be substantiated. But I don´t. I am not saying that Pauls "exactly" guarantees that he was right, the way that you try to lead on in your post. I am saying that it enhances the probability that he was right on account of how it seems he had made a check with a timepiece.

I'm not saying you're saying that - how could I be when I neither quoted you, nor paraphrased you?
In fact my post was not directed at you in particular, not was it only in regards to the Nichols murder.
My point was about the excessive power that the word 'exactly' seems to have, on the credibility of times given by witnesses, especially when contrasted with witnesses who give less precise sounding estimates. The later category seem to set themselves up for contradiction or exploitation - Charles Cross being the prime example.

It is basically two different ways of doing Ripperology. You either try to make your case as best as you can, going on the facts. Or you distort what people who do that are saying. Apparently, you prefer the latter approach.

Yeh, that'd be it.
However, let's have a look at how easy the system would be to game, using your superior method of highly rating the credibility of those who proceed recollections of the time with the word 'exactly', compared to those unreliable types who proceed with words like 'about'.

Hypothetical inquest scenario:

Charles Cross: On Friday morning I left home at exactly twenty minutes to three.

If Lechmere were really Jack the Ripper, that's all he had to say to prevent anyone supposing so.
Who would have known it wasn't true?

[Fisherman]

Only if the 'exact' time given, is credible.

No, that is not how it works, I´m afraid. Paul claims to be able to give an exact timing, none of the others do, therefore Pauls timing must be regarded as being more likely to be correct than the others. At the end of the day, Paul may have lied, he may have been mistaken, he may be totally off the mark, but that does not matter as long as we do not know that any of these things apply. Until we do, Paul remains the source most likely to be correct, regardless of whom we compare him to.

Your question: "who should we trust when a conflict like this arises - an unknown carman or an experienced beat constable?" is best answered by saying "the guy who had a timepiece to check the time by. And that guy was by apparition Robert Paul. Understanding a clock is per se not all that hard. If you look at your watch when a robbery takes place in the street and find it to be 7 PM exactly, and if you know that your clock is correct, would you take a differing PC:s view over yours if he implicated that you were five minutes off? Although you had checked it thoroughly? Are "experienced policemen" more likely to understand what the clock says than you are?

You may (or may not) also note that when Paul says "I left home just before a quarter to four", that timing is in perfect line with being in Bucks Row at exactly 3.45.

You ask "How does Cross know that he is 'behind time' without a timepiece of his own, or at least a clock to look at?", and the simple answer to that is that he knew either from hearing a clock strike as he walked to work, or he had a clock at home that told him that he was late as he left. Neither of these possibilities mean that he would know exactly what the time was as he met Paul, though.

... and yes, these points make the rest of your post redundant. The conclusion is that you need not worry that the word "exactly" guarantees that Paul was on the money. But it DOES implicate that he was being more observant and wary of the time than any other player in the drama - which is the very point I have made all along.

That point, by the way, was not lost on the police either. In his September report, Swanson puts the matter down to 3.40, but one month later he has amended that to 3.45, if I am not much mistaken. The suggestion that the police had looked at the different parameters and come to the conlusion that Paul was most likely correct becomes quite tantalizing, don´t you think? After all, experienced policemen would know, would they not?

[Fisherman]

Today, Stig Engström, the so called Skandia Man, has been dubbed the killer of prime minister Olof Palme back in 1986. This owes mainly to Thomas Petterson, who wrote the book "Den osannolika mördaren" ("The unlikely killer") about Stig Engström in 2018, pointing Engström out as the killer of Palme.

Petterson says today that the main issue people have had accepting Engström as the killer is how he himself reported in to the police. This, people said, whould have meant that the police without a doubt would have investigated him in depth if it was called for: Since Engström was never investigated in depth, that meant that he could not possibly have been guilty, they reasoned.

It is a reasoning that has a bearing on the case against Charles Lechmere too, of course. The exact same reasoning has been applied out here. Therefore, the story about Stig Engström and the Palme murder makes for useful reading.

A few examples of how the police missed out on Engström:

1. He was able to point out a few peopla as having been present at the site. These people, however, were all present at the site before the shots were fired. After that, numerous other people arrived at the site, but Engström was not able to identify any of them.

2. Engström claimed to have helped positioning Palmes body on the pavement, whereas the two women who actually did it said that they had done so alone. No Engström had been present. He was owhere even near Palme at that stage, and they did not see him before either.

3. Three people were asked to confirm Engströms presence at the murder site after the shots. Two of them categorically denied having seen him there, whereas the thrid said that he could have been the man who spoke to himself through a car window. However, another man testified that he had been the person speaking through the window, and so there was never anybody who could certify that Engström was in place after the shots were fired. Regrdeless of this, the police wrote in their report that Engström was in the clear since a witness had testified to the effect that he was at the site in the aftermath of the shots, meaning that he could not have been the fleeing killer.

This was the investigation into the murder of the prime minister of Sweden, an investigation that has cost tax payers around 50 million pounds. Engström injected himself into the investigation, he claimed to have run up the stept from Tunnelgatan in pursuit of the policemen who took up the pursuit of the killer - and he afterwards claimed that the people describing the fleeing killer as around 180 centimeters, wearing a cap and steel-brimmed glasses and a longish overcoat had probably seen Engströn dashing for the police and mistaken him for the real killer! Of course, Engström met the description in every respect. Noone at the site, however, remembered Engströn having run up the stairs a few minutes after the killer had done so...

The police will NOT always investigate people who are quite likely to be killers. Not even if they answwer perfectly to the description given by witnesses, not even oif it is evident that he has lied and not even if he has committed the most high profile murder in the history of a western democracy. Let´s keep that in mind. The argument that Lechmere coud not have been the killer of Polly Nichols because the police must have checked him out and cleared him is nothing more than a misconception based on faulty thinking.

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up for this great thread.

Post #2 is a revelation


RD

[Geddy2112]

Ooo many thanks..

Bump up for this great thread.

Post #2 is a revelation

I'd say it's GOLDEN. I'm off to fill my coffee pot and get back here as it looks like I'm going to need to edit a certain project as new information has cropped up. *rubs hands and cackles*