Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Mr Lucky]

Well done Mr Lucky!

Although the odds are that Polly Nichols and her killer entered Bucks Row from the West. So the blood spots ( if there were any) were in the opposite direction, West of where she lay, farther up Bucks Row towards Brady Street, and not towards the Board School.

Hi Observer

I think the reporter is comparing the new blood stains with the old ones, the ones that were already found not to be blood, that lead to Brady Street. the article describes the body being 'brought', it dates from when they still thought she might have been murdered somewhere else

Also if the spots were found shortly after noon why did Spratling not detect them? He inspected the street between the hours of 11 and 12.

They were very small, he may not have been looking for two drops of blood 10 foot apart, but much larger amounts as they thought someone had moved the body.

The Inquest dragged on until the 22nd of September ample time for the spots of blood to be discussed at inquest. Is it possible the police learned of the attack by the man on his wife, and came to the conclusion that the blood spots had been deposited then?

That the interesting bit, I dont know who the man/wife are or who lived nearer the board school than the Perkiss family or the Greens!

[Observer]

Well done Mr Lucky!

Although the odds are that Polly Nichols and her killer entered Bucks Row from the West. So the blood spots ( if there were any) were in the opposite direction, West of where she lay, farther up Bucks Row towards Brady Street, and not towards the Board School. Also there were no dwellings between where Polly Nichols lay and the Board School, the houses were situated in the opposite direction, so the blood must have been situated outside one of those houses.

Also if the spots were found shortly after noon why did Spratling not detect them? He inspected the street between the hours of 11 and 12.

The Inquest dragged on until the 22nd of September ample time for the spots of blood to be discussed at inquest. Is it possible the police learned of the attack by the man on his wife, and came to the conclusion that the blood spots had been deposited then?

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hello Observer ,

yep you could be right Sir .. either way if the article is to believed there is no way CrossMere could have put them there ..

cheers

moonbegger

First off well done for deciphering my post!

If Cross were the murderer, and we adhere to witness testimony, then no, he could not have deposited the blood 35 feet or so from the body.

All we need now is some concrete evidence, (other than the Star report) that the blood actually existed.

I wonder where The Star picked that particular piece of information up? Certainly not from the inquest.

To be fair Inspector Spratling who testified that no blood spots were detected in Bucks Row did not actually search the area until 11am. I suppose an intrepid reporter from The Star could have searched and found the blood spots before this time, but why were they not visible at 11 a.m. when Spratling searched the Street?

Wouldn't it have been the duty of anyone finding such an important piece of evidence to report it to the police?

Regards

Observer

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Moonbegger

The two blood spots you mention are up towards the board school,

From Lloyd's Weekly News 2nd Sept. 1888

‘Shortly after noon on Friday some men while searching the pavement in Buck's-row, above the gateway, in a different direction to that from which the woman came, or was brought, found two large spots of blood, and each about the size of a shilling. The first was about 25 feet from the gateway and the second 10 feet beyond. Both were a few inches from the kerb in the roadway and clearly defined. It was at once agreed they came either from the hands or the clothing of the murderer as he went away, and that they resulted from the squeezing out some blood-soaked clothing. Our representative discovered, however, on making inquiries the same night, that at a house near where the blood spots were a man, early on the morning of the tragedy, had made a murderous assault on his wife and cut her throat. She was carried to the London hospital, and it is very probable some blood dripped from her.’

[Bridewell]

Hi Moonbegger,

The context indicates that the presence of the blood was "probably caused by something in the hands of the murderer as he walked away". That makes the interpretation of 25 to 35 feet "above the place" as being vertically above it something of a nonsense, I would have thought. My interpretation would be that it was the same distance along the street in the uphill direction (i.e. towards Spitalfields). I'll be interested to see how others interpret it though.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

When we leave aside for just a moment the whats,whys,where's, and whens
The two pillars that are standing tall are the facts that ..

1) Chas Andrew Cross .. Was the name that was put on record at the inquest ,It was not the name he chose for himself (Charles Allen Lechmere) once his step father(Thomas cross) died and he got married 17 years previous . [conjecture alert] Although he may well have been known as Charles Cross before he got married and started his own family in 1871. [clear

]

What's with all these pesky brackets, Moonbegger ? (clear). Nothing is less clear than that Lechmere " may well have been known as 'Cross', other than when his stepfather put him down as such when he was aged 11 and had no choice. What is clear is that 'Cross' wasn't his name.

2) He was the ONLY MAJOR witness , who was there at a crime scene Not to have his address noted down ( At any ripper Inquest) .

I think that we've established that his address was noted (if the police could give it to the Star), but he chose not to give it, or garble it, at the inquest.

If we had any one of the two , we could possibly mark it down as an oversight on behalf of the Coroner , or the inquest register , or even sloppy detective work on behalf of the Police , and yes Fish , Even sly manipulation by a would be killer! But the fact that they both stand side by side , each one supporting the other , adding strength and sealing up gaps where their was possibility for conjecture to creep in , has got to lead us in the direction that he was allowed a certain degree of anonymity ..

I'm sorry. I'm having difficulty following you. That Lechmere was known as Cross for one single time when he was a child and had no say in the matter ? That he really didn't want his identity and address to become
known via the inquest ? What's all this guff about strength and sealing ?

We dont know the unmitigated circumstances in which he was allowed this anonymity , we can only speculate , but from those two pillars that are stood in front of us , its clear in my mind that he was

.

They're not quite 'pillars', are they ? I'm quite willing to march up your 'anonymity' path -it doesn't make Lechmer/Cross less a suspect.

[conjecture alert] And maybe , just maybe, the sole purpose of him wearing his work attire to the inquest on his day off was suggested to him by the police as away of dubbing down suspicion at his lack of address details .
[clear] I know that one jumps right into Fish's keep net .

You do.

I would also like to add that the name Cross was in fact his name at some points in his life [CA] maybe he was known by some at work by it , from his first year or so before his step father Thomas Cross died , maybe even up until he married and started afresh in 71 [clear] There really is no way of knowing what he called himself in the years before .

It was his name as a child. So now you have only 'some' at work knowing him
by that name? Let's hope that they didn't work as a team.

i also believe that his wife was completely in the know as to what was going on

On what basis ?

why on earth would he need to hide it from her ?

An excellent question.

I don't think either one of them thought it was a great adventure in their lives

You don't want to think that, but it would have been a major event in ordinary lives. Jack the Ripper captured the imagination of the East End. Mrs Lechmere died in 1940, long enough to be aware of the sensational/notorious/legendary status of the story. To have a personal story to tell...and her's was exceptionnel..was a source of kudos. But she didn't mention it to her chidren.

in fact they may have even gone to great lengths to keep it from the children .

(use your imagination ) -for what possible reason ?

The likelihood is that she didn't know.

Tea time

-another of my home infusions ? (I must have dosed it incorrectly at breakfast).

[moonbegger]

Evening all

[Two large drops of blood ,clear and undeniable, which were visible on the Buck's-row pavement, 25 and 35 feet above the place where the body lay, were made by fresh thick blood, and were probably caused by something in the hands of the murderer as he walked away. Added to this is the slight abdominal hemorrhage, such as would be the case if the cutting were done after death]

Now i am familiar with Across the road , and up the road / down the road is completely open to one's own interpretation of the road .. but above the road has me stumped .. Is it possible thats why spratling and co missed the
Two Large drops of blood ? they were looking on the road instead of looking up into the sky ! if they had they would have for sure seen those two pesky drops of blood hovering 30 feet above them

In all seriousness anyone got any ideas about " above where the body lay"?

moonbegger .

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;233481]Bridewell:

"I'm looking at the last sentence in particular:

Quote:
Hiding it from the rest of the world, his neighbours included would fail the moment they said "Good morning, Mrs Cross!""

There is a comma missing after included. Big deal. The sentence as such is gramatically wrong until you add that comma. Look at the rest of the paragraph and hopefully you will see what I mean. Hopefully.

It may only be a comma but, yes, it is a big deal if it changes the whole meaning of the sentence! I accept that you didn't intend the meaning as originally written, but I had no way of knowing that. You didn't mean it as written, so I withdraw the comments based upon that version.

"That isn't. (It's not what you posted.) This is:"

Nothing circular about that either, Iīm afraid.

I disagree, but others can form their own opinion on that one.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

Sally:

"At least I do apply logic Fisherman."

I think we are both of the meaning that we do so, Sally. And actually, by reasoning we should then reach the same conclusions. But we donīt, which is why I suspect we define "logic" in different ways.

The best,
Fisherman

Now there, Fisherman, I do agree with you.

[moonbegger]

Observer:What makes you think that the article implies that the drops lay by the Board School ? To me the article implies that the blood that lay above where the body lay, that is up into Bucks Row proper. This provided there were any blood stains other than where Polly Nichols lay.

Hello Observer ,

yep you could be right Sir .. either way if the article is to believed there is no way CrossMere could have put them there ..

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

fisherman : Thomas Ede and Patrick Mulshaw do not give their addresses at the inquest. Some doctors did, like Blackwell and Phillips, some didnīt, like Saunders and - in the Nichols case - Llewellyn. George Morris said that he worked at Kearley and Tonge, but does he give his adress? No.

Yes you right Fish , but these are non essential witnesses ! if you go through each of victims inquest reports you will find a few non essential witnesses , who have no real significance in regards to the actual murder .. and their address are not deemed important .

But you will not find a major witness who was there on the scene , around the time of a murder who's address is NOT noted down .. And as we can see by the Baxter/Phillips exchanges Coroners were sticklers for following proper procedure !

When we leave aside for just a moment the whats,whys,where's, and whens
The two pillars that are standing tall are the facts that ..

1) Chas Andrew Cross .. Was the name that was put on record at the inquest ,It was not the name he chose for himself (Charles Allen Lechmere) once his step father(Thomas cross) died and he got married 17 years previous . [conjecture alert] Although he may well have been known as Charles Cross before he got married and started his own family in 1871. [clear]

2) He was the ONLY MAJOR witness , who was there at a crime scene Not to have his address noted down ( At any ripper Inquest) .

If we had any one of the two , we could possibly mark it down as an oversight on behalf of the Coroner , or the inquest register , or even sloppy detective work on behalf of the Police , and yes Fish , Even sly manipulation by a would be killer! But the fact that they both stand side by side , each one supporting the other , adding strength and sealing up gaps where their was possibility for conjecture to creep in , has got to lead us in the direction that he was allowed a certain degree of anonymity ..

We dont know the unmitigated circumstances in which he was allowed this anonymity , we can only speculate , but from those two pillars that are stood in front of us , its clear in my mind that he was .

[conjecture alert] And maybe , just maybe, the sole purpose of him wearing his work attire to the inquest on his day off was suggested to him by the police as away of dubbing down suspicion at his lack of address details .
[clear] I know that one jumps right into Fish's keep net .

I would also like to add that the name Cross was in fact his name at some points in his life [CA] maybe he was known by some at work by it , from his first year or so before his step father Thomas Cross died , maybe even up until he married and started afresh in 71 [clear] There really is no way of knowing what he called himself in the years before .

[CA] I think that the sole reason for the whole anonymity malarkey , would really have been to protect his family ( his home address ) And who on these boards wouldn't ? i also believe that his wife was completely in the know as to what was going on, why on earth would he need to hide it from her ? I don't think either one of them thought it was a great adventure in their lives , one that they would necessarily want to pass down to future generations , in fact they may have even gone to great lengths to keep it from the children .

So the fact (Witness#1) may have been known by some as Cross , does not upset the apple cart in the slightest , in fact it is probably a help rather than a hindrance for him to have a ready made explanation when is asked about it by friends and work colleagues .. Again , the sole purpose IMHO was to keep his family safe and his home address out of the papers .. [Clear]

Even today the (Witness Protection program) has many alert levels , from a simple name change, to a safe house, to a complete new identity. they are all individually assessed and forwarded accordingly . You can never assume a one size fits all with peoples fears .

Tea time

Moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Mr lucky pointed out the salient fact that the star would have gone to print in the afternoon - meaning that the star journalist either was the only one to hear the address being given (unlikely) or asked for it during the lunch recess (likely).
Clearly the police gave it to the journalist. Thus as I said totally undermines the theory that Cross was under protection.
Also as I said the official police records make no mention of this.

The only valid interpretation - I think - is that he did not give his address in open court.
This adds fuel to the likelihood that he was known as Lechmere at work on the basis that thecombibation of Cross and Pickfords would have meant nothing.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"At least I do apply logic Fisherman."

I think we are both of the meaning that we do so, Sally. And actually, by reasoning we should then reach the same conclusions. But we donīt, which is why I suspect we define "logic" in different ways.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

"i dont know - ghosts can be funny b*ggers "

Canīt fault you there, Jenni!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

" It's not my theory, nor my personal faith in a potential suspect which is being tested by that pesky logic thing. "

in a sense it is, Sally. Your take on Lechmere is no less conjeture than mine. And the logic you apply ...well ...

The best,
Fisherman

At least I do apply logic Fisherman.