Cross Theory II

[Mr Lucky]

What if Robert Paul's original LWN story was true?

Where would that leave matters?

Hi Simon,

Logically - what Cross told the inquest on the third, that they both left together, would be false. Just like his name.

(don't worry - I'm still the only one who thinks Cross killed Nichols, after he sent Paul to find a policeman.)

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Pete

I'm sure Stewart won't mind me attempting to ellucidate.

What he's telling you is that when you see in a press account of an inquest the words:

"By the Coroner"

You should read them as saying:

"When questioned by the Coroner the witness then said:"

Similarly with "By the Foreman" or "By a juror"...it was an understood convention at the time, which would now not be used.

Hope this helps

Dave

[Lechmere]

Cog
I spelt that simple truth out about 100 posts earlier in this thread!

In his Lloyds interview Paul maximised his own role – I would suggest out of vanity. Even so, he doesn’t explicitly say he left the other man (who turned out to be Lechmere) behind.
He merely talks about himself. He certainly doesn’t make it explicit that he left Lechmere behind, does he...
‘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.’

In his inquest statement Mizen makes it clear that the two Carmen reached him together.
Lechmere did likewise.
The coroner would have had their written statements in front of him the consult as they gave their evidence.
Similarly when Paul came to give his evidence the coroner would have had Paul’s written statement in front of him.
None of them were ‘immediate’ witnesses, dragged off the street to testify (although it could be argued Lechmere was), with no prior written statement.

Part of the coroner’s role was to encourage the witness to give a full account of what had transpired so the jury could make an informed decision. If a witness missed bits out that were in his written statement then the coroner may ask supplementary questions to get the information into the ears of the jury.
That was the purpose of the open hearing – for the jury to decide.

Are we to believe that there was a blatant discrepancy in Paul’s written statement compared to that of Mizen and Lechmere – that Paul stated that he had left Lechmere alone with the body – which Paul in his evidence described as possibly still breathing?
And the coroner didn’t notice?

Which reports specifically say that either Lechmere or Paul stayed with the body – as opposed to so and so going to find a policeman?
How many reports state that they went together?
When dealing with newspaper reports that deal with a specific event and where mistakes can be made by individual journalists it is best to look at all the reports in the round. The overwhelming consensus is that Lechmere and Paul went together.

[Mr Lucky]

Lechmere,

Yes, we have gone over this before, Robert Paul versus Cross - whose version should we trust

I believe Paul and you believe Cross, and to be fair - just like the rest of ripperology

But the fundamental problem with your theory is with that central premise of yours, that Cross is the one telling the truth, and it's everyone else who are lying. Which is fine if you believe in Cross's innocence like the rest of Ripperology, but surely not, if you think he's the killer... According to you the murderer had turned up at the police station on Sunday night, solely to put them straight about what Paul had said in Lloyd's regarding the two men splitting up!

Doesn't the pure lack of realism surrounding that key idea of yours, that the killer had got away with it by turning up at the police station and telling the truth, alarm you in any way?

Doesn't it make you think that you've got things backwards in some way ?

[Lechmere]

Mr Lucky
I think Mizen told the truth ay the inquest when he said that Lechmere and Paul both turned up together.
I think Paul told the truth at the inquest when he said the same thing.
I think Lechmere told the truth about that aspect as well. But I don't think Lechmere told the truth about everything - suffice it to say!

[Patrick S]

I've always found Cross/Lechmere interesting. Ultimately, I'm troubled by one aspect of his candidacy: He was on his way to work.

I assume that his employment at Pickfords was verified by police and/or press. Indeed, his start time (and his route to get there) is one of the primary facts used to view him with suspicion. Thus, let's conceded that it's extremely likely that he was employed, at Pickfords, and his start time was 4am.

I'm troubled by the fact that this man was on his way to work or was actually working (if you follow the theory to Hanbury Street his cart was being loaded/unloaded at the market while he was engaged with Chapman) and was apparently unconcerned about blood splatter on his clothing. Apparently Tabram was on Cross/Lechmere's route, as well. Thus, we attribute her murder to Jack the Ripper (Cross/Lechmere) as it fits the geography and time-frame. Tabram's throat was cut and she was stabbed dozens of times. I think it's reasonable to assume that the killer would have been covered in blood (Note: I've heard it suggested by some that the fact that JtR was covered in blood with Trabram caused him to alter his method).

Most agree that JtR planned his attacks. Therefore, if Cross/Lechmere was JtR then he left work each day intent on committing literally bloody murder, and then going straight to work. So what's the theory? That he had a change of clothes? That he never got blood on him? That he had a bolt hole along the route to wash and change?

I'm not condemning the theory. Its just an aspect of his inclusion as a suspect that I've found problematic.

[Scott Nelson]

You can't assume that Cross was intent on committing murder every morning on his way to work.

[Patrick S]

I don't. Poor choice of words. I mean only on the days that murders were committed.

[Ben]

Hi Patrick,

I agree with your points, and would add that not a single known serial killer can be shown to have claimed victims on their way to work, and for good reason I would have thought. Note also that Chapman's likely time of death at 5:30am means that Cross, due at work hours earlier, is not plausibly in the frame for that murder.

All the best,
Ben

[Patrick S]

Hi, Ben. If I recall correctly the theory is that Cross would have had his cart at the Market near Hanbury Street -loading or unloading - while he did the deal with Chapman. I'd have to dig for it again. Its interesting. But it seems a stretch.

Thanks.

[Lechmere]

Whoever the killer was would plausibly not have been covered in blood – as most of the victims seem to have been strangled first which, even if not to the complete extinction of life, would have reduced the heart's strength and ability to vigorously pump blood.
Furthermore there were many fountains and water sources in the area so the killer would be able to wash his hands at least, if necessary.
If the culprit fled through the streets covered in blood then I rather suspect he would have been caught before the end of the sequence.

Looking at this case, prostitutes were killed late at night in locations where it seems that they went willingly with their killer. This location was suitably discrete for a murder to be committed. Even though the locations were all fairly open and fraught with risk for the culprit, they were the best options available to him. Where else could he have killed?
In the daytime it would be impossible. Night provided the desperate victims and relative cover.

The fact that the victims were concentrated in a relatively small area and found in similar circumstances suggests a local culprit or at least someone with strong local connections.

Did the killer have a reason to be on those streets at those times, or did he purposely go out to commit the crimes and then go back to wherever he came from and go about his life?
Serial killers tend to kill when they have the opportunity to kill.
If the culprit was a working man with a family – and plenty of serial killers are – then in late Victorian London, when would he have the opportunity to kill?
When would he be able to go out in the dead of the night and find his victims and the return, without raising suspicion at home?
I would suggest that unless he had a ready excuse to go out at that time – for example to go to work - then his vicious and violent instincts would have remained as unfulfilled fantasies.

Plenty of serial killers have killed while at work.
The idea that no one would ever kill while on their way to work is an odd one to propose – why not?

Lechmere had worked at Pickfords for twenty years. He stated that his start time was 4 am.
I have examined the plans of Broad Street Station. The stable area was not large and was adjacent to an office, a straw store, mess room, toilet block – and tarpaulin stores (strangely enough).
I doubt that all Pickfords staff started at 4.00 am. I rather suspect that at 4.00 am there would not be too many people about and Lechmere would have been able if necessary to clean himself up and even hide things in a suitable location.
Pickford’s Broad Street depot was furthest from the Nichols murder scene. For the others it was not much more than five minutes away. Very convenient.
I exclude Stride from this as that was not on a work day.

So to remain a plausible suspect, where could the killer have gone after each killing?

Could he have taken refuge in a common lodging house?
The police certainty thought this was a likely possibility as they devoted a lot of their time ‘checking out’ these establishments after each crime, although it seems that as the series progressed, this opinion lessened as it would be next to impossible for a blood splattered killer – with body-part trophies – to enter such an establishment unnoticed.

Perhaps the killer stayed out all night each time he killed, hiding away in a stairwell perhaps, until the streets became more crowded and anonymous?
This again raises difficulties if he was blood splattered and carrying trophies. The likelihood that he could have remained on the streets and undetected after each crime seems unlikely once the hue and cry and public hysteria were at their peak.

Could he have gone back to a hotel? Obvious problems.
What about barrister’s chambers? These were not available for slumbering or hiding in after hours.
Could he have gone back home – unlikely if he had a family – but possible of he was single and had his own place, perhaps a one bedroom flat with a separate entrance, near the mean centre of murders.

I would like to see any named suspect who has a more secure post murder destination to Lechmere’s.

Of all the Whitechapel murders, the times of death of Kelly and Chapman are most uncertain (I’m excluding the Pinchin Street torso from this for obvious reasons). They could have been committed at roughly the same time as the others – while Lechmere was on his way to work.
I know Fisherman follows Dr. George Bagster Phillips in favouring on early time for Chapman’s murder.

The nature of Lechmere’s job meant that he would often have to wait for a long time for his cart to be unloaded. Because of this people were employed to act as cart minders (eg coincidentally Elizabeth Long the Chapman witness). Lechmere could have slipped away for a while even during his hours of employment and may have taken this extra step for the Chapman murder which may have had an additional layer of motivation to it.

[Ginger]

I have examined the plans of Broad Street Station. The stable area was not large and was adjacent to an office, a straw store, mess room, toilet block – and tarpaulin stores (strangely enough).

Why would you consider tarpaulin stores odd? Pickford's was a carting company, and would presumably be called upon to transport all shapes and sizes of things in all sorts of weather. I'd expect them to have a large variety of tarpaulins on hand to protect their customer's goods in transit.

[Lechmere]

Lechmere claimed that he thought Polly Nichols' body was a tarpaulin when he first saw it.
Numerous subsequent Ripperological writers added to Lechmere's testimony by saying that he was about to scavenge the supposed tarpaulin. This effectively exonerated Lechmere in the eyes of their readers, as it carried the implicit understanding that Lechmere had no idea that Nichols had been killed and accordingly he could not have been responsible for her death.
In fact there is no evidence that Lechmere said that he intended to scavenge the supposed tarpaulin.
On several occasions I have made a nuisance of myself in objecting to the auto suggestion that Lechmere was in the process of scavenging a tarpaulin when he discovered Nichol's body.
That is why I referred to the location of the tarpaulin store in that manner.
It was a joke.

[Ginger]

Aha - Thanks! That makes sense.

The plans of the Broad Street depot of which you spoke - are those available online anywhere? I've a longstanding fascination with the lives of horses in Victorian cities.

"The Horse World of London" (W.J. Gordon, Religious Tract Society, London, 1893) lists Pickford's Broad Street operation as housing some 300 horses, all property of the "North Western" (presumably the London and North Western Railway Company, as the mention occurs in the context of an enumeration of horses owned by railways), and under lease to Pickford's, who operated the carting part of the business under contract. Presumably they were mainly engaged in hauling goods to and from the railway depot, probably including fish and produce arriving overnight for the morning markets.

I can't find any mention of Pickford's policies, but the general practice among carriers seems to have been to send a 'boy' with each carter to help load and unload, and assist in general. The presence of the boy would have presented a difficulty to Cross in trying to leave the market, murder Chapman, and return un-noticed, although of course that's not insurmountable.

[Lechmere]

No the plays aren't online. I had to go to the Hackney Local History Archive.
I had heard that 300 figure before - but the stables area was small - I would have thought big enough for 50 horses maximum. I shall have to seek out that book.
I have seen pictures of Pickfords carts of the period (at the Pickfords head office) with nearly always just one driver.
However if he had a boy with him (one of his sons became a carman and was listed at least once as a trainee of some sort - I seem to recall - I haven't got time to search out that record now) if they had to wait then no doubt the boy would act as the cart minder, allowing the senior to go for breakfast, or whatever.