Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Lechmere]

I am interested in that report that Moonbeggar turned up (as he does on occasion) from The Echo on 20th September 1888.
The reference in full reads:

“The Whitechapel murders are as inexplicable as ever, and at present the utmost energy on the part of the police has failed to secure sufficient evidence to justify an arrest in a quarter where suspicion lurked shortly after the commission of the fatal outrage at George-yard-buildings. Inspector Reid, Detective-sergeant Enright, Sergeant Goadby, and other officers then worked upon a slight clue given them by "Pearly Poll." It was not thought much of at the time; but from what was gleaned from her, coupled with statements given by Elizabeth Allen and Eliza Cooper, of 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, certain of the authorities have had cause to suspect a man actually living not far from Buck's-row. At present, however, there is only suspicion against him.
“This morning, Rosetta Anderson, a woman residing in Pearl-street, Spitalfields, made a statement to the effect that last evening a "curious and mysterious man," as Mrs. Anderson herself describes him, placed himself on her doorstep, looked around him, and behaved in such an eccentric manner that she thought he was a maniac. He intently watched every woman as she passed, but, observing that he was himself an object of suspicion, he suddenly darted out of sight up a court near. Mrs. Anderson believes that this man was the murderer. His appearance, in almost every respect, answered to the description of the foreigner seen talking with the deceased woman in Hanbury-street, on the morning of her death. The police are investigating the matter. Strange to say, his appearance tallies somewhat with that of the man already alluded to.”

Pearly Poll (who was involved in the Tabram investigation) provided some information, but initially the police could not make any headway with it, whatever ‘it’ may have been.
We know that Eliza Cooper came to the police’s attention with respect to the Annie Chapman murder. She is the lady who bashed Annie Chapman in an argument over some soap.
The police seemed to link the man seen by Rosetta Anderson with the Pearly Poll evidence.

It has been suggested that the man was Pizer – but he was actually arrested on 10th September and was quickly released and cleared.

However it seems to me more likely that the man referred to was Robert Paul.
Great and Little Pearl Streets are about 100 yards north of Paul’s workplace at Corbett’s Court. He lived very close to Bucks Row. Foster Street is nearer to Bucks Row than Mulberry Street – Pizer’s address.
Paul appeared at the Nichols inquest on 17th September and it seems likely that he had only been tracked down shortly before this. He slagged the police off in the press again after his inquest appearance.

Anderson could well have seen Paul hanging about.
Paul lived near Bucks Row, and may have superficially resembled the man Elizabeth Long thought she saw outside 29 Hanbury Street on the morning that Annie Chapman was murdered. Hence the police may have thought he was the same man that Pearly Poll alluded to.
It might even be the case that Elizabeth Long had seen Paul before as she regularly walked down Hanbury Street, past Corbett’s Court, to her work place at Spitalfields Market.

The point of interest to me is that I think Charles Lechmere committed the Tabram murder and the Pearly Poll reference could actually have been alluding to Charles Lechmere not Paul. But Charles Lechmere was totally out of the police’s line of vision whereas Paul – due to his avoidance of the police and his unwise public slagging of them, was not.

[caz]

Hi Lech, All,

The fact remains that Cross confirmed the part of Paul's newspaper account that put Cross first at the scene in Buck's Row, watching Paul walk towards him and stopping him in his tracks to show him the body. So it is both simplistic and naive to argue that the police would have concentrated all their investigative powers suspecting the innocent Paul to the complete exclusion of Cross, just because the latter had volunteered his story to them, while the former had volunteered his only to the papers.

Cross could not have 'essentially exonerated himself' in police eyes, all the while they were investigating Paul. That's just common sense. The two had been together at the scene, with no third party witnesses to confirm either of their stories. So if the alleged second man was investigated for the Buck's Row murder, it goes without saying that the alleged first man would have been part and parcel of that same investigation.

Hi Fishy,

Thanks for the frenology lesson. But you could have done with a few lessons on how not to completely miss the point.

Hundreds of men were detained and questioned in connection with the Whitechapel murders. If you are saying that Lechmere was automatically in the clear because of the size and shape of his head, then what are you saying about all these other men who were not so fortunate? Did every last one of them possess the physical features that were supposed to indicate a criminal personality, while Lechmere did not? And how would you know?

I've seen some straw-clutching around here, but really this latest argument is sheer nonsense. Carman Cross did not become a suspect because the police had no reason to disbelieve that he had innocently come across the victim on his way to work. You can believe it was the shape of his head that made all the difference, but leave me out of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

Frenology?

I must have missed that one...

[Fisherman]

Caz! You´re back!

Let´s see what you´ve got this time, and how many of my counterarguments are myths!

"Thanks for the frenology lesson. But you could have done with a few lessons on how not to completely miss the point."

Oh! I missed the point? Why?

"Hundreds of men were detained and questioned in connection with the Whitechapel murders."

Yes, Caz, that was so!

" If you are saying that Lechmere was automatically in the clear because of the size and shape of his head, then what are you saying about all these other men who were not so fortunate?"

Ah! But you see, I am NOT saying that Lechmere was in the clear because of frenology. There would have been lots of men jailed who actually were frenologically wrong. That would be beyond dispute, I think. When the evidence is overwhelming, you get nicked no matter the width of your nose! Then, it would have been more of a matter of "Who would have thought that it was HIM - he looks so noble!"

Then again, I never said anything else. What I said was that frenology played a major part in how the police shaped their ideas about how criminals look. And then I provided evidence to go along with it, evidence that for instance told us that Bond and Charles Hebbert (of torso murder fame) believed in frenology. This I did because you in your ignorance claimed that it was "myth" to say that frenology coloured the thinking of the police.

I can add more today, for good measure. I´m quoting Mei again:

"Another Italian, Figerio, lectured on the largest ears he had ever seen which were on a woman charged with murdering her husband. Ottolenghi noted that sex offenders had rectilinear noses; Marro found most of them to be fullbearded."

"Bertillon assembled physical measurements - "portraits parlé" (the speaking likenesses) - of 1600 criminals on a cross-referenced card file system at the Sűreté ... Elliot Ness´s cops in Cleveland were still using the system to track down the Butcher of Kingsbury Run in the 1930:s."

This you did not know, Caz, and therefore you shouted "Myth!" when you heard it. Which is patently, obviously and proven wrong by now.

What is it you think IS myth here? That frenology was widespread and accepted as a useful tool by the likes of Bond? Or that it coloured the hunt for the Ripper? Pray tell me, Caz!

Nobody went safe because of their good looks during the age of frenology. But it is certain that some were less inclined to get picked as killers, rapists, thieves because their looks pointed to innocence and a noble mind. It is almost inconceivable to think that such balderdash governed criminology little more than a hundred years ago, but there you are, Caz. You see, I have misunderstood nothing and missed no point - but you have. You ruled frenology out as an influence with zero knowledge about it, and now you try to claim that I am the misunderstanding party. Nice! And a refreshingly new take on how to avoid admitting having stepped in it big time.

"You can believe it was the shape of his head that made all the difference, but leave me out of it."

I don´t HAVE to "leave you out of it" - you left yourself out totally all on your own by not having a clue.

You have now, though, and therefore you also have a responsibility towards recorded history to acknowledge it. Do with that as you wish, Caz.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I must have missed that one..."

Makes two of you, then. Don´t pride yourself, though - ignorance never was something to flaunt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Uh Huh.

[Lechmere]

Caz
When you say...
“it is both simplistic and naive to argue that the police would have concentrated all their investigative powers suspecting the innocent Paul to the complete exclusion of Cross, just because the latter had volunteered his story to them, while the former had volunteered his only to the papers.
“Cross could not have 'essentially exonerated himself' in police eyes, all the while they were investigating Paul. That's just common sense. The two had been together at the scene, with no third party witnesses to confirm either of their stories. So if the alleged second man was investigated for the Buck's Row murder, it goes without saying that the alleged first man would have been part and parcel of that same investigation.”

You seem to be trying to suggest that the police actively investigated Charles Lechmere.
We know that they took an active interest in Robert Paul. I would suggest they did this partly out of spite as Robert Paul slagged the police off twice in the press and partly because he did not come forward voluntarily. It is also clear that he was exonerated and they dropped their interest in him.
However there is ample evidence that the Police did take an interest in Paul, and there is (as highlighted above) a suggestion that the police may have tried to link Paul to the Tabram and Chapman murders on top of the Nichols murder.
Can you please provide a single shred of evidence that the police took any interest in Charles Lechmere whatsoever, beyond your non simplistic and non naive assertions and baseless conjecture?

[Sally]

Dear Ed

You seem to be trying to suggest that the police actively investigated Charles Lechmere.

Please provide one shred of evidence that they did not, beyond baseless conjecture. A little mental exercise for you - how do we know that the police investigated Paul?

And here's a nice little story for you in exchange for yours. I was taking a walk in the park the other day, and you know what? I saw a duck, just sitting in the middle of the pond. I went to have a closer look - but Oh No!

Sadly it was dead in the water.

P.S. on the way back I saw a couple of blokes flogging some dead horses. Waste of time in my opinion, but, hey, each to their own.

[Lechmere]

Sal
The way things tend to work in historical investigation is that if you put forward a proposal that something or another positively happened then there should be some sort of historical evidence to substantiate that claim.
It is not a case of having to prove a negative. Hence as there is no evidence whatsoever that the police took the slightest interest in or investigated Charles Lechmere, it isn't for me to 'prove' that they didn't.
However as I like to leave no stone unturned I have obviously considered the likelihood of whether or not they would have Investigated him. I conclude they did not for the following reasons which I will back up with evidence as that is the way I like to do things.
1) the police did not discover that his real name was Lechmere and not Cross
2) Dew couldn't even remember his false name which suggests he never loomed large in the police's investigations.
3) the extant police records make it clear who they were interested in at the early stage of the investigation - pizer, ischenschmidt, the three butchers, and from other sources we know they were interested in Paul.
4) we know that Charles lechmere did not meet any of the preconceived prejudices that the police harboured about potential suspect and indeed was the opposite of what they (wrongly) expected in a potential killer.
5) Charles Lechmere's actions cam be shown to have deflected suspicion from himself

Then we have the issue of whether Paul was suspected. That is easy to deal with as he himself stated that he was dragged out of his bed and interrogated.

[Lechmere]

An addendum to your interesting story, for one moment I thought you were going to say you were ducked in the pond and that the pond in questing was the ducking pond that gave rise to the name of Bucks Row.

[Ben]

Cross was the first person to discover Nichols' body.

The police accepted that.

Paul was the second person to discover Nichols' body.

The police accepted that too.

Are people seriously arguing that the police investigated the second man on the scene, but never even considered investigating the first?

Seems highly improbable to me.

[Fisherman]

Hello Ben! Long time no see!

"Are people seriously arguing that the police investigated the second man on the scene, but never even considered investigating the first?"

Yes. But you need to add a few ingredients before trying to cook a soup here. Lechmere and Paul are not on par, as you seem to suppose. And I think that if Paul had not criticized the police and if he had come forward and spoken to them in the manner that Lechmere did, then he too would have remained unresearched.

The combination of Paul´s slagging off the police, the Hanbury Street murder that took place little more than a hundred yards from Paul´s workplace, and Robert Paul´s evasive actions visavi the police was arguably what caused an interest in him. None of these negative factors would have attached to Lechmere, and that makes for a convenient explanation as to why he sparked no interest on behalf of the police.

If the two men had been on par with each other in every respect, your question would have been a more useful one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Are people seriously arguing that the police investigated the second man on the scene, but never even considered investigating the first?

Yep.

Seems highly improbable to me.

To me too. But wait - perhaps we're not 'experts' like the Crossmere proppers are? Yes, that might be it..

[Fisherman]

"Sour, said the fox about the sorbberries."

Old Swedish proverb, especially for you, Sally

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I can't accept that any competent investigator would overlook the basic, crucial reality that I've outlined purely because Paul seemed a bit ruder and a bit naughtier. He was still the second man at the scene of the crime, whereas Cross was the first, and if it occurred to them (for whatever reason) to investigate Paul, they would certainly have done the same for Cross.

The Hanbury Street murder occurred along Cross' work route - another reality that could not have been lost on the police.

All the best,
Ben