Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

I did a short stint in a Saturday job when I was a teenager at our local Co Op butchers shop. Obviously its not a slaughterhouse, so most of the meat came as carcasses. The only ones who got blood on them to any noticeable degree were the genuine butchers who would cut a piece of beef or pork to the customers requirement. They get blood on their hands and wipe them on their smocks before wrapping the meat in greaseproof, then brown or news, paper.
The only time any of the rest of us really got any blood on us would be if we got the unenviable job of scrubbing the butchers block, and there would be some nasty messy goop from that.
Like you say, chickens and ducks were a different matter. There were a couple of women who dealt with cleaning those nasty things out before they were considered "Oven Ready" as that was all the rage back then... The way those two ladies handled a knife... blimey...
I was lucky to get a transfer to the greengrocers after but a few months in that place.

I suspect that the old Ripperological truism of a blood-stained butcher walking through the streets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields with utter impunity during the Autumn of Terror is more of a myth than a reality.

In wouldn't hurt, of course, if one followed that trade, but one of the most important early suspects--drawing the suspicion of both Abberline and Warren--was Isenschmid and he was literally a pork butcher. They thought Isenschmid might have been the blood-stained man seen by Mrs. Fiddymont and Abberline, when tossing his lodgings, checked his clothes for blood-stains, even though it would have been natural for him to have had some. (Abberline didn't find any).

That he had a perfectly good reason to be bloody bloodstained didn't disarm their suspicions; indeed, they sought to place him in a police line-up.

[A P Tomlinson]

Cross was a delivery-man, not a slaughterer or butcher. As someone who once had a job delivering meat myself, I found it far more likely to be contaminated by the post-mortem bowel movements of any poultry I was carrying, than to be splashed in blood. Not that there's much blood to speak of; there's the watery, pinkish myoglobin you can see with any joint, steak or chop, but that's about as gory as it gets. The animals will have been slaughtered, bled and butchered long before, perhaps hours before, the delivery-man arrives to pick up the cargo, so the meat is pretty "clean" at that stage.

Of course, we're assuming that the carman handles much meat anyway, as opposed to the butchers and/or their assistants loading the bulk of it onto the carman's cart.

I did a short stint in a Saturday job when I was a teenager at our local Co Op butchers shop. Obviously its not a slaughterhouse, so most of the meat came as carcasses. The only ones who got blood on them to any noticeable degree were the genuine butchers who would cut a piece of beef or pork to the customers requirement. They get blood on their hands and wipe them on their smocks before wrapping the meat in greaseproof, then brown or news, paper.
The only time any of the rest of us really got any blood on us would be if we got the unenviable job of scrubbing the butchers block, and there would be some nasty messy goop from that.
Like you say, chickens and ducks were a different matter. There were a couple of women who dealt with cleaning those nasty things out before they were considered "Oven Ready" as that was all the rage back then... The way those two ladies handled a knife... blimey...
I was lucky to get a transfer to the greengrocers after but a few months in that place.

[Sam Flynn]

Cross was a delivery-man, not a slaughterer or butcher. As someone who once had a job delivering meat myself, I found it far more likely to be contaminated by the post-mortem bowel movements of any poultry I was carrying, than to be splashed in blood. Not that there's much blood to speak of; there's the watery, pinkish myoglobin you can see with any joint, steak or chop, but that's about as gory as it gets. The animals will have been slaughtered, bled and butchered long before, perhaps hours before, the delivery-man arrives to pick up the cargo, so the meat is pretty "clean" at that stage.

Of course, we're assuming that the carman handles much meat anyway, as opposed to the butchers and/or their assistants loading the bulk of it onto the carman's cart.

[Geddy2112]

Imagine a balloon half full of red paint. There is no pump forcing the paint around the balloon. Stab the balloon with a sharp knife. Would you get paint on your hands, sleeves, body?

Experts can be used to say X, Y or Z in theoretical 'lab' conditions of course they can. However when have you ever got your car to get the advertised MPG? Use some common sense here. What is more likely to have happened? 'Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense.'

[A P Tomlinson]

So it seems most likely that the "appearance" of someone that would lead a copper to consider that he "Looked" like a carman boils down to "Apron" or "Cap and Apron".
So I think it's most likely that Cross WAS wearing an apron on his way to work that morning.
That also helps, if help were needed, in establishing why he was wearing it to the inquest. If Mizen was required to identify him, he would be expected to look as close to how he did that morning, (along with the high probablity that he had already put a short shift in already and would need to go back to work when he had done at the hearing.)

So the question remains, would either Paul or Mizen be expected to have noticed the blood on the apron that those Lechmerians tell us would have made it easy for him to pass through the streets having performed the acts he is alleged to have done?
It has long been one of the pillars used to support their case. ie, "Wearing a bloody apron would not look out of place..."

I still maintain that he would have had SOME blood on him... and not just a few specks. His hands at the very least and he placed one of them on Paul's shoulder, and given how often people touch their face unconsciously, surely...

Given what he allegedly did, and how he behaved, (according to the other witnesses) what do we think about the blood (or lack thereof)?
Could he have done what they say he did, with literally no opportunity to make an attempt to clean himself up meet and touch a passerby, and get within sufficient proximity of a copper so that he was able to recognise his face and no one see any blood about his person?

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Sometimes the simplest explanations, and our initial assumptions, are the best.

I spent a little time digging around in newspaper archives last night trying to find other examples of men who were said to look like carmen, and found four.


The first is from 1860, and he looked like a carman because of his white frock.


Next up is an account from 1912. In a road accident, the victim was thought to be a carman because of an apron was found in the road (it was actually a mail bag).


In an 1870 case, a thief merely put on an apron and was assumed to be a brewery worker and/or carman, allowing him to steal a horse and cart.


Finally, an 1851 case.


I take it a "fustian" is a type of tunic over the shoulders, perhaps more like a Victorian cabman than a carman.

Your belief that Cross and/or Paul were wearing their work aprons is the best answer. It may have helped them keep warm during those 3.30 a.m. commutes.

It makes sense that someone picking up goods for transport would require some sort of identification--a company hat or apron or badge--but I'm failing to find any explicit conformation of this.

Cheers.

Thanks for all that digging, Roger. And for sharing your findings, of course. Good to see the results are in line with what we were/are thinking.

And maybe in the near future you get lucky and find that Pickford's people did indeed wear company caps and aprons.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fiver]

Hi Frank,

Sometimes the simplest explanations, and our initial assumptions, are the best.

I spent a little time digging around in newspaper archives last night trying to find other examples of men who were said to look like carmen, and found four.


The first is from 1860, and he looked like a carman because of his white frock.



Next up is an account from 1912. In a road accident, the victim was thought to be a carman because of an apron was found in the road (it was actually a mail bag).




In an 1870 case, a thief merely put on an apron and was assumed to be a brewery worker and/or carman, allowing him to steal a horse and cart.




Finally, an 1851 case.




I take it a "fustian" is a type of tunic over the shoulders, perhaps more like a Victorian cabman than a carman.

Your belief that Cross and/or Paul were wearing their work aprons is the best answer. It may have helped them keep warm during those 3.30 a.m. commutes.

It makes sense that someone picking up goods for transport would require some sort of identification--a company hat or apron or badge--but I'm failing to find any explicit conformation of this.

Cheers.

Fustian is a type of heavy coarse cloth. I suspect it refers to the apron.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Frank,

Sometimes the simplest explanations, and our initial assumptions, are the best.

I spent a little time digging around in newspaper archives last night trying to find other examples of men who were said to look like carmen, and found four.


The first is from 1860, and he looked like a carman because of his white frock.



Next up is an account from 1912. In a road accident, the victim was thought to be a carman because of an apron was found in the road (it was actually a mail bag).




In an 1870 case, a thief merely put on an apron and was assumed to be a brewery worker and/or carman, allowing him to steal a horse and cart.




Finally, an 1851 case.




I take it a "fustian" is a type of tunic over the shoulders, perhaps more like a Victorian cabman than a carman.

Your belief that Cross and/or Paul were wearing their work aprons is the best answer. It may have helped them keep warm during those 3.30 a.m. commutes.

It makes sense that someone picking up goods for transport would require some sort of identification--a company hat or apron or badge--but I'm failing to find any explicit conformation of this.

Cheers.

Absolutely brilliant post!


RD

[rjpalmer]

No worries, RD - can happen to the best.

Hi Frank,

Sometimes the simplest explanations, and our initial assumptions, are the best.

I spent a little time digging around in newspaper archives last night trying to find other examples of men who were said to look like carmen, and found four.


The first is from 1860, and he looked like a carman because of his white frock.



Next up is an account from 1912. In a road accident, the victim was thought to be a carman because of an apron was found in the road (it was actually a mail bag).




In an 1870 case, a thief merely put on an apron and was assumed to be a brewery worker and/or carman, allowing him to steal a horse and cart.




Finally, an 1851 case.




I take it a "fustian" is a type of tunic over the shoulders, perhaps more like a Victorian cabman than a carman.

Your belief that Cross and/or Paul were wearing their work aprons is the best answer. It may have helped them keep warm during those 3.30 a.m. commutes.

It makes sense that someone picking up goods for transport would require some sort of identification--a company hat or apron or badge--but I'm failing to find any explicit conformation of this.

Cheers.

[FrankO]

Ah yes, my apologies, I completely missed that!

No worries, RD - can happen to the best.

[The Rookie Detective]

We don't know that, RD. See Roger's post #6278. He writes: "I haven't been able to confirm this was the case in 1888, but the account below suggests that by 1911 Pickford's men wore company aprons and caps."

Ah yes, my apologies, I completely missed that!



RD

[FrankO]

We know he had a Pickford's uniform

We don't know that, RD. See Roger's post #6278. He writes: "I haven't been able to confirm this was the case in 1888, but the account below suggests that by 1911 Pickford's men wore company aprons and caps."

[FrankO]

Mizen's testimony according to the 4 September 1888 Western Daily Press
The Coroner: Them was another man in company with Cross?
Witness: Yes. I think he was also a carman.

This is from the Morning Advertiser of same date:
"Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.
The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."

And the Echo of the day before has it like this:
"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.
By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

- Frank

PS Just saw that I missed your post #6281, Roger.

[The Rookie Detective]

Why are you assuming that Lechmere wasn't wearing his cap and apron that morning?

Was he?

I have no idea

I would assume he must have been unless he put on his work attire once he got to work?

I think it's an important point that doesn't seem to have been addressed.

If he was wearing his Pickford's gear, he would have been more noticeable and identifiable as a Carman.

And yet it doesn't seem to be discussed

For those Lechmerians it's an important point because it would then imply he would have been wearing the same attire on his way to work for the other murders

But as far as I am aware, there were no sightings of any Carman close to the other murder sites around the time of the murders.

In other words, if he WAS wearing his Pickford's uniform in Bucks Row, it reduces the likelihood of Lechmere having been the killer even moreso

If he wasn't wearing his Pickford's gear in Bucks Row, then the question would be...

Well, why not?

He was running late and on his way to work...

That would mean he must have left his uniform, including cap at his workplace...

But I would imagine that such items like a cap and apron would be kept on his person rather than leaving them on site.

The question is...

Where was the standard place for a Pickford's Carman to leave their cap and apron out of hours?

If the answer is that the Carman kept their own cap and apron with them, then that would surely indicate he must have had those items with him in Bucks Row.

Consider this...

If he turns up to the inquest wearing his work attire, that shows he was permitted to take his cap and apron with him outside of work hours.

That then begs the question...

If he had the apron and cap in Bucks Row, then why was it never highlighted?

He never carried a bag

And he was on his way to work apparently.



The Pickford uniform is a key aspect of this Lechmere candidacy, and it's always the finer details that are usually more important.


We know he had a Pickford's uniform

We know he went to the inquest wearing his work gear, which was perfectly normal

That must then mean he wore his Pickfords gear in Bucks Row?

If not, then why not?

And where then was his uniform on the night Nichols was murdered?


RD

[Fiver]

If Lechmere wore a Pickford's cap and apron for his work, then why wasn't he wearing that attire on his way to work on the morning of the murder of Nichols in Bucks Row?

After all, he went to give evidence in his work clothes.


Then why was he not wearing them on the morning of the murder?


RD

Why are you assuming that Lechmere wasn't wearing his cap and apron that morning?