Chas Lechmere/Cross/Crass/Brass/Glass/etc

[caz]

Hi Mr Lucky,

Thanks for the explanation, which will do nicely for now.

Of course, we don't know that the killer was able to dictate any of the murder locations. The victims would have known the best places and probably chose familiar patches.

Hot smoke and steam, pluthering out of the 3.7 from Newcross, that’s what caused the problem for Cross, by the time it clears, he can see Robert Paul and he’s only 40 yards away!

He wouldn’t know what Paul had seen , but would see Paul hurrying towards him. What should he do? As soon as he starts to run Paul could have started shouting, there are police and watchmen nearby.

I can see that would have been a problem, if the killer suddenly realised a witness was fast approaching who could have seen all sorts. But wouldn't the same hot smoke and steam have affected Paul as well, preventing him from seeing what the killer was doing until it cleared for both of them?

Even if Paul's vision had been clear throughout his approach, it strikes me as unlikely that the killer's first reaction would have been to tap him on the shoulder and direct his attention to the body, not knowing if this stranger had already seen too much. It seems more the action of someone who was expecting Paul to give him a wide berth and walk swiftly on, ignoring him and whoever - or whatever - was lying nearby. My guess is that Paul would have liked to do just that, had Cross not actively prevented him by asking for his assistance.

RE -Knife - The area was searched for a weapon, and none were found, so why didn’t the killer discard it as he left the scene, if that was the sensible thing to do. Perhaps we should look for some one who didn’t have the opportunity to?

If the killer wasn't seen either with the body or leaving it, he had every chance of getting well away before the murder was discovered and the police began stopping potential suspects. He would not have wanted to discard the knife as he was clearly going to do it all again the following weekend, but it would have been the sensible thing to do if he knew as he left the scene that someone was about to stumble upon it and raise the alarm. We don't know that was the case in Buck's Row, and it seems the killer wasn't expecting to be stopped and searched before he could make it to safety.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Caz

Of course, we don't know that the killer was able to dictate any of the murder locations. The victims would have known the best places and probably chose familiar patches.

The victim and patch were probably quite close together, Mulshaw’s presence in Winthrop may have narrowed down the number of options, too.
A local may have had a knowledge of the patches likely to be used.

I can see that would have been a problem, if the killer suddenly realised a witness was fast approaching who could have seen all sorts. But wouldn't the same hot smoke and steam have affected Paul as well, preventing him from seeing what the killer was doing until it cleared for both of them?

Yes, but would Cross know that ? , that why I think Paul hurrying down the row, is a key issue, it may make it appear that he was intending to get involved. If Paul was just dawdling along he may have given a different impression.

Even if Paul's vision had been clear throughout his approach, it strikes me as unlikely that the killer's first reaction would have been to tap him on the shoulder and direct his attention to the body, not knowing if this stranger had already seen too much. It seems more the action of someone who was expecting Paul to give him a wide berth and walk swiftly on, ignoring him and whoever - or whatever - was lying nearby. My guess is that Paul would have liked to do just that, had Cross not actively prevented him by asking for his assistance.

Yes , I think Paul would have walked by if he wasn’t stopped by Cross.

If the killer wasn't seen either with the body or leaving it, he had every chance of getting well away before the murder was discovered and the police began stopping potential suspects. He would not have wanted to discard the knife as he was clearly going to do it all again the following weekend, but it would have been the sensible thing to do if he knew as he left the scene that someone was about to stumble upon it and raise the alarm. We don't know that was the case in Buck's Row, and it seems the killer wasn't expecting to be stopped and searched before he could make it to safety.

Well, that’s fair enough. but where I don’t agree is ‘he was clearly going to do it all again the following weekend’, how do we know that before the event, was he booked in ?

Best Wishes

[caz]

Yes , I think Paul would have walked by if he wasn’t stopped by Cross.

Hi Mr Lucky,

Crucially, it appears that Cross thought so too, or he wouldn't have had to tap Paul on the shoulder and steer him towards the lifeless bundle.

I can't see Cross wanting or needing to do that if he had just murdered and mutilated the woman himself. Why on earth would he not have waited to see if Paul was remotely concerned to know what he - Cross - was doing there, or what the bundle was? If Paul had stopped of his own accord and shown any interest, that would have been the time for Cross to talk his way out of it, and he had the knife if Paul had seen too much or didn't believe him.

Well, that’s fair enough. but where I don’t agree is ‘he was clearly going to do it all again the following weekend’, how do we know that before the event, was he booked in ?

Well I find it rather unlikely that the man who killed Nichols had no intention of using his knife again but was caught unawares by a sudden urge to do so the very next week. Especially if he was prevented from really going to town in Buck's Row because Paul was fast approaching.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

Crucially, it appears that Cross thought so too, or he wouldn't have had to tap Paul on the shoulder and steer him towards the lifeless bundle.

I can't see Cross wanting or needing to do that if he had just murdered and mutilated the woman himself. Why on earth would he not have waited to see if Paul was remotely concerned to know what he - Cross - was doing there, or what the bundle was? If Paul had stopped of his own accord and shown any interest, that would have been the time for Cross to talk his way out of it, and he had the knife if Paul had seen too much or didn't believe him.

Hi Caz

It’s a dynamic situation, While Paul is hurrying down bucks row, Cross thinks that he may have seen something, as Cross moves towards him, Paul then shimmies past, as he is hurrying just because he is late for work, nothing else, but Cross doesn’t know this, he may think Paul doesn’t fancy his chances and is now hurrying to find the nearest beat PC.

Why would Cross need to wait for Paul to arrive to before crossing the road to look at the woman, anyway?

Well I find it rather unlikely that the man who killed Nichols had no intention of using his knife again but was caught unawares by a sudden urge to do so the very next week. Especially if he was prevented from really going to town in Buck's Row because Paul was fast approaching.

Caz, That’s just a Coach-before-the-horse-ism, that the killer was interrupted, so he had to do it all again with Chapman. I won't have 'em in my theory.

[caz]

Hi Caz

It’s a dynamic situation, While Paul is hurrying down bucks row, Cross thinks that he may have seen something, as Cross moves towards him, Paul then shimmies past, as he is hurrying just because he is late for work, nothing else, but Cross doesn’t know this, he may think Paul doesn’t fancy his chances and is now hurrying to find the nearest beat PC.

In which case he could have let Paul do just that while he legged it in the other direction. He'd have been at work by the time anyone began looking for him, and how would they know where to look or who to look for, if Paul had only been allowed the briefest glimpse before hurrying off?

There were only two possibilities from Cross's point of view, assuming he was the murderer: Paul was either hurrying to fetch a copper because he believed Cross was up to no good, or he was simply hurrying along with no desire to get involved. Either way, tapping him on the shoulder and effectively steering him over to the freshly mutilated corpse would seem to have been wholly unnecessary and a lot more trouble than it was worth, only adding to any misgivings the man already had about the situation, or inviting suspicion where there had been none.

Why would Cross need to wait for Paul to arrive to before crossing the road to look at the woman, anyway?

For a bit of moral support, presumably, as an innocent passer-by in this dodgy, poorly lit street, who was not sure what, or who, was lying there and why, but had enough curiosity to find out. It was clearly a situation where most people would have been glad of someone to investigate with.

Caz, That’s just a Coach-before-the-horse-ism, that the killer was interrupted, so he had to do it all again with Chapman. I won't have 'em in my theory.

That's fine, but if Cross only heard or saw Paul when he had finished with Nichols, there must only have been a few seconds between, or he'd have been on his toes before he was aware of anyone coming. It had to be a very close thing for the killer to still be at the scene when he first became aware of this potential witness.

But my point was really about the knife, and why Nichols's killer would have been reluctant to dump such an effective weapon without good cause if he had any plans at all for a repeat performance. We do know he set out the following weekend equipped with a sharp enough knife for the work on Chapman, so I don't think its use was entirely unplanned or unexpected.

On the other hand, if Cross was the killer he'd have had very good cause to dump the knife at the earliest opportunity, and was surely cunning enough to distract Paul's attention while doing it, before going on to encounter PC Mizen. But that evidently didn't happen.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

What do the people who believe that Cross/Lechmere was the killer think that he would have done differently, had he not been the killer, but an innocent passer-by? He did what any sensible person would have done. He stopped the first passer-by to come along, and sought his assistance. Yet this you find suspicious?

Same murder: Pc Neil finds body. Seeks help from Pc Thain. Suspicious? No.

Chapman murder: John Davis finds body. Seeks help from workers nearby. Suspicious? No.

Stride murder: Diemschutz finds body. Seeks help from club members. Suspicious? No.

Eddowes murder: Pc Watkins finds body. Seeks help from George Morris. Suspicious? No.

Kelly murder. Indian Joe finds body. Seeks help from McCarthy. Suspicious? No.

McKenzie murder: Pc Walters finds body. Seeks help from Isaac Jacob. Suspicious? No.

Okay, I've laboured the point more than a little, but if the body was in the street, somebody had to find it and take appropriate action. That somebody was Lechmere, who found the body and did the same as everybody else did who found one - but in his case alone it becomes suspicious activity. Why? If he'd seen someone else and taken to his heels, that would have been suspicious, but he didn't. This theory suggests that Cross/Lechmere killed Nichols and, having done so, hatched a cunning plan to do exactly what an innocent person would do in the same circumstances. It's far more likely that he did what an innocent person would do because he was innocent. Okay, so his real name was Lechmere, but he appears at the inquest using the surname of his former stepfather, Pc Cross. He gave the correct forename and the correct address though so, if the police wanted to find him again they could do so with ease. What would be the point of a murderer taking that course of action? Oh, and Pc Mizen, who carried on knocking-up when he should have broken off to go to Bucks Row, tells a story which makes his actions look rather less blameworthy. Hsrdly surprising in the circumstances. There is no evidence that Lechmere killed Nichols or anyone else - absolutely none.

[moonbegger]

Evening all ,

Hot smoke and steam, pluthering out of the 3.7 from Newcross, that’s what caused the problem for Cross, by the time it clears, he can see Robert Paul and he’s only 40 yards away!

Did either CrossMere or Paul make mention of this ? or was it just the time and lighting that accounted for the visibility ?

cheers

moonbegger .

[Mr Lucky]

Did either CrossMere or Paul make mention of this ? or was it just the time and lighting that accounted for the visibility ?

Hi Moon,

No, it's just Mrs Lilley that mentions the train.

The effect on visibility is an assumption of mine.

I believe, independently of whether it was Cross or someone else, that Mrs Lilley did hear the murder take place.

Best wishes, nice to see you back!

[Mr Lucky]

In which case he could have let Paul do just that while he legged it in the other direction. He'd have been at work by the time anyone began looking for him, and how would they know where to look or who to look for, if Paul had only been allowed the briefest glimpse before hurrying off?

There were only two possibilities from Cross's point of view, assuming he was the murderer: Paul was either hurrying to fetch a copper because he believed Cross was up to no good, or he was simply hurrying along with no desire to get involved. Either way, tapping him on the shoulder and effectively steering him over to the freshly mutilated corpse would seem to have been wholly unnecessary and a lot more trouble than it was worth, only adding to any misgivings the man already had about the situation, or inviting suspicion where there had been none.

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Well thats fair enough, but he may have not even considered what he should do in such circumstances previously. I think the location (without the interaction of the train) would have prevented such an approach down Bucks row getting close enough to put him in the situation that he felt he couldn't flee.

For a bit of moral support, presumably, as an innocent passer-by in this dodgy, poorly lit street, who was not sure what, or who, was lying there and why, but had enough curiosity to find out. It was clearly a situation where most people would have been glad of someone to investigate with.

He wasn't so shy when he thought it was a tarpaulin, straight across the road, to the middle.

That's fine, but if Cross only heard or saw Paul when he had finished with Nichols, there must only have been a few seconds between, or he'd have been on his toes before he was aware of anyone coming. It had to be a very close thing for the killer to still be at the scene when he first became aware of this potential witness.

But my point was really about the knife, and why Nichols's killer would have been reluctant to dump such an effective weapon without good cause if he had any plans at all for a repeat performance. We do know he set out the following weekend equipped with a sharp enough knife for the work on Chapman, so I don't think its use was entirely unplanned or unexpected.

On the other hand, if Cross was the killer he'd have had very good cause to dump the knife at the earliest opportunity, and was surely cunning enough to distract Paul's attention while doing it, before going on to encounter PC Mizen. But that evidently didn't happen.

But that's another C-before-H, how did he know where he would meet Mizen? and therefore be able to judge where best to dump the knife? he might have wanted to dump it in H-div territory across Baker's Row. Once he got past Mizen would he still feel the need to lose the knife?

[Lechmere]

It is enlightening to see the anti-Lechmere theorists rubbishing the theory knowing that they cannot be contradicted. But...

Cog in post 6
Your point (3):
“Lechmere/Cross somehow conned Paul into accepting he'd just discovered a dead body”
No – Lechmere took Paul’s to the body and got him to touch it – there is no presumption that Lechmere wanted Paul to believe the body was dead.
Your point (4):
“When they subsequently met PC Mizen, Lechmere/Cross somehow scammed Paul into not hearing what was said to Mizen”.
No, the suggestion is that Paul chose not to involve himself in the discussion with Mizen and stood off or started to wander off up Hanbury Street in advance of Lechmere. This is based on the anti Police attitude seen in Paul’s two press interviews, a report that has Paul wandering off first and the accounts which state that the conversation on the corner of Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street as only between Mizen and Lechmere.
Your point (5):
“When it came to the Inquest the previously supposed totally attentive and intelligent Mizen suddenly became thick, docile and leadable and was somehow conned into supporting the Lechmere/Cross testimony”
This is pure invention by you – Mizen testified before Lechmere and Lechmere contradicted him.
It’s just as well you posted in a ‘moderate’ manner.

PaulB
On what are you basing the view that Lechmere was traced – quickly or slowly?

Bridewell
The reason why proponents of the Lechmere theory have described him as being found over the body of a ripper victim.
It is a tad disingenuous to say that “The person whom Lechmere waylaid (Robert Paul) described him (Lechmere) as 'standing in the middle of the road'.”
You should by now know that Paul gave a press interview on the very day of the murder (31st August) in which he stated (Lloyds Weekly News, 2nd September)
“It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was.”
By the time Paul appeared at the inquest on 17th September it is true that he slightly modified this to (Daily Telegraph 18th September 1888):
“he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road.”
As you say “Bucks Row was not a wide street”,
so it is a bit odd to me that you still find it difficult to accept that it can be colloquially stated that Lechmere was found over the body.

FrankO
I don’t think anyone has suggested that Lechmere was so foreseeing that he anticipated that everything would have turned out. I would suggest that he was lucky and that he opportunistically adapted to each changing circumstance – Paul coming along – Mizen being around the corner – Paul doing a newspaper story – and so forth.

Oh – and there wasn’t a side street by Brown and Eagles. There was a gate.

Caz et al
This has been discussed ad nauseam
When confronted with a situation of discovery the culprit will be faced with an age old dilemma – faced my many in situations that do not involve murder.
Fight or Fly
Turn and face the music – bluff it out – or in warfare literally fight.
Or run away.
What option taken depends on the circumstances and the psychology of the person involved.
In this instance if he fled then he would not be sure how much the approaching person had seen. He would not be sure that the approaching person wasn’t a policeman.
The streets were deserted.
There was another beat policeman ahead of him somewhere. What if the approaching person got to the corpse and raised the alarm just as the culprit was passing the beat policeman.
If – as I would suppose – the culprit was a psychopath, then he would be used to lying his way out of situations and of having his lies accepted.
In short it is not in the least unimaginable that the culprit – if disturbed – might stop and bluff his way out of it. Such bare faced sang froid has been exhibited by other serial killers – and serial killers have often struck soon after being suspected.

And as for the next victim – in my opinion he did it quickly and in that general location to implicate Paul – Chapman was killed 100 yards from Paul’s workplace and he had not come forward. That ties Lechmere to murder no 2 (or 3).

Oh yes – and once Lechmere committed to turn and face the on-comer, he could hardly just let him walk past without comment just because he tried to avoid him or because he was walking quickly. They met some yards back down Buck’s Row as Lechmere approached Paul.
Paul was on the northern pavement - the body was on the southern pavement. But Paul stepped off the pavement to walk around Lechmere – perhaps giving the impression that he was crossing the road to the southern pavement. Then Lechmere tapped him on the shoulder.
The ‘normal’ thing for Lechmere to have done is just to call out to Paul straight away, rather than go through this strange fandango.

SteveS
In every case where there is a known alternative name for anyone involved in this case, the internal police reports record it. The last extant internal police report to mention Cross is (from memory) 18th October 1888. This strongly suggests they had not ‘checked him out’ by then. Given the number of leads and the fact that the paperwork piled up and passed through one narrow choke point (Swanson’s desk) it is extremely unlikely that they were able to revisit every witness from the early stages of the case, particularly one who did not fit any of the police’s preconceived criteria for a potential murderer.
Also Dew is quite good at remembering names in his memoirs, but he can’t remember Cross’s. A pointer that he was Mr Anonymous who just melted into the background.

[Lechmere]

Bridewell
The suspicious aspect of Lechmere finding the body is that he (with Paul) then abandoned it so that it was rediscovered by Neil, who alerted Thain.
It is also the only time the body was tampered with (the touching) and the only time the abdominal wounds were hidden.
It is the only time when the first discoverer (Lechmere) was seen by someone (Paul) close to a body (we can argue exactly how close) prior to his raising the alarm.
Then after leaving the body and bumping into a policeman (Mizen), Lechmere (and Paul) fail to alert him properly to what had occurred (you can make an excuse for that if you wish) and then there was a discrepancy between Mizen and Lechmere as to what was said (i.e. wanted by a policeman).
Why do you suppose Mizen carried on knocking up?
Precisely because Lechmere (and Paul if you like) did not alert him to a serious situation that urgently needed his attention – even if you ignore the policeman waiting for him around the corner aspect.
If Lechmere wasn’t sure that Nichols was dead, then I would suggest that leaving an unconscious woman without properly alerting the first policeman seen was a callous act.

There are a lot of ‘Red Flags’ to alert an investigator. Find a similar number with another ‘witness’.
That is without going into geography of his familiar locals and his name switch.

It also seems likely that although Lechmere would have given his correct address and workplace at the police station he must have appeared at, he did not give his address in open court. This can be interpreted from only one newspaper getting his address exactly correct, while not one other newspaper got even an approximation. This can be taken to suggest that the enterprising reporter for this newspaper (an evening paper where the copy had to be sent in at lunchtime) asked the court officials for the address.

Why give the address and workplace to the police? Maybe when he gave his name he didn’t appreciate that he would have to give extra details and then judged it sensible to give a true address and workplace in case they checked. If he gave false details and they checked it would be worse for him as they would then actively search for him and he would come under suspicion. I would suggest it was a calculated risk – and using the name Cross was enough to murky waters yet not enough to get him in total trouble if found out.

My apologies for everything said in these two posts has been gone through before.
But if you want to be strict about it Bridewell, there is no evidence that anyone killed any of the victims. We have to deal with what we have.

[moonbegger]

Why give the address and workplace to the police? Maybe when he gave his name he didn’t appreciate that he would have to give extra details and then judged it sensible to give a true address and workplace in case they checked. If he gave false details and they checked it would be worse for him as they would then actively search for him and he would come under suspicion. I would suggest it was a calculated risk – and using the name Cross was enough to murky waters yet not enough to get him in total trouble if found out.

Alternately , Why risk getting involved in the investigation at all ? when there really was no need to insert himself a web of lies and calculated risks in the first place .. Why take an active stance in confronting Paul and alerting him to his fresh kill, when it would have been much easier to say nothing and work off Pauls reaction to the situation .. There would have been no more guilt attached to CrossMere had he adopted a passive stance and let Paul make all the moves ..

Its looks very much like Paul , who was walking quickly and in poor lighting was already in the process of passing CrossMere and the murdered Polly ..

So ... Danger passed ? Why then would CrossMere, murder weapon in possession and blood possibly still on his hands tap Paul on the shoulder and draw his attention back across the road ( unless his main objective was to incriminate paul further by wiping the blood off his hands and onto Pauls coat )

Another piece of this ill fitting jigsaw is the fact that it was Paul who pulled down her clothing to cover her modesty . If we are to believe that it was CrossMere who hatched this whole abort routine and subsequent escape plan then you would think that it would be he, who would have pulled her clothing down as soon as he became aware of the approaching paul. It would make it a lot easier to excuse her as just a drunk sleeping it off . And both men could go about their buisness . No drama .

cheers

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Because...

The Cross/Paul meeting didn't happen as Paul was passing Nichoils, it happened some yards back down Buck's Row, just as Paul would have been seeming to cross the road
Actually he was walking around Lechmere who seems to have blocked his way.
I think he did work off Paul's re-action - his fear of being attacked. This would - I think - have put Lechmere in a dominant position where he told Paul to come over and touch the body.
By so doing Paul might get blood on him and this would at least give Lechmere an excuse for any blood on his own person (they touched different bits of her).

Regarding her clothing - I think it is clear the culprit did pull them down but not fully. Paul pulled them down a little more, but not completely. It is clear they were caught up behind her which inhibited Paul puling them down. Hence given he would have had limited time, sitting there tugging at her dress to make her look neat and tidy wasn't an option for the killer.

[caz]

But that's another C-before-H, how did he know where he would meet Mizen? and therefore be able to judge where best to dump the knife? he might have wanted to dump it in H-div territory across Baker's Row. Once he got past Mizen would he still feel the need to lose the knife?

Hi Mr Lucky,

I thought Cross felt obliged to go through the motions of alerting a policeman as he and Paul made their way on to work, given that he had invited Paul to come and investigate the body with him and they left the scene together. As it turned out Paul probably wanted no more to do with the police than Cross did, but they both took the minimum action any responsible person should have taken in the circumstances: they made sure a policeman was told about the woman.

If Cross was cunning enough to think on his feet and pull this little stunt with Paul, he could easily have discarded the knife while Paul's full attention was on Nichols, so he wouldn't still be carrying it when they went on to report their findings to the next policeman they encountered, which happened to be PC Mizen. Alternatively, if he wanted to keep the knife and avoid any contact with the police he could have parted company with Paul sooner, by claiming to be going in a different direction and suggesting that each of them alert the first copper they meet on their separate onward journeys.

As simple as crossing the street, surely?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And as for the next victim – in my opinion he did it quickly and in that general location to implicate Paul – Chapman was killed 100 yards from Paul’s workplace and he had not come forward. That ties Lechmere to murder no 2 (or 3).

Hi Lechy,

I should have thought Paul was the last person Cross would have sought to implicate, and so soon, given the scenario Cross himself volunteered to the inquest, which confirmed Paul's account of arriving second at the scene in Buck's Row and having to be steered towards the murdered woman by Cross, who had initially been seen by Paul standing - in your own words - "over the body".

If he had successfully implicated Paul in Chapman's murder, he'd have implicated himself into the bargain, as further questions would inevitably have been asked about both men's involvement in Buck's Row, and we can be sure as eggs is eggs that the completely innocent Paul would have been hopping mad and pointing the finger straight at Cross, knowing that he had been standing "over the body" of Nichols before Paul knew anything was wrong.

If Cross really did have such a close shave in Buck's Row, I very much doubt he would have chosen to kill again the very next weekend in nearby Hanbury Street, before he could have been confident that the police were done with him and not busily checking out the details he had given (as the first person seen with the murdered Nichols) and discovering, for instance, that he had lied about his name.

Love,

Caz
X