Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[FrankO]

Hi John Trent,

The hem would normally come to her ankles. If you pull that up and place it near her chest, then the fold will be mid thigh ish. So to pull down a dress that is exposing up to the thighs one would grab the hem that is near the chest.

Something like that I imagin.

- Jeff

I see you beat me to it, Jeff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve always taken it that Cross heard Paul approaching and then caught first sight of him at around 40 yards.

[Elamarna]

Lechmere didn't say he saw Paul at 40 yards. He said he heard him at that distance.

While you are correct that he does not say he saw him, you cant really say you hear something at 40 yards. It's about interpretation Fiver, so clearly Lechmere hears footsteps, but to give a distance such as about 40 yards, he must look.

Steve

[Elamarna]

So long story short there is zero evidence Charles Lechmere actually worked for Pickfords????

The man who appears at the inquest lived at 22 Doveton St, the same address that Charles Lechmere lived at.

This man, who gave his name as Cross also worked for Pickfords.

It seems clear that Lechmere and Cross are the same man.

No employment records were found that were related to the names of Cross or Lechmere.

Steve

[Elamarna]

How could Lechmere see Paul approaching 40 yards away; when he and Paul BOTH couldn't see Nichols with mortal cuts and her eyes open from less than 2 yards away?

Unless they were both long-sighted, then that doesn't make sense.


RD

Totally different things RD.

In the dark, it's movement that is often more noticeable, than detail or colour,
Dark shapes can also stand out . Thus how Lechmere sees a shape on the opposite pavement.
It's how eyes work.

So when Lechmere turns he sees movement at about 40 yards. As Paul gets closer it becomes clearer.

But once they get over to the body, further away from the light sources on the northern side of the street( I really do recommend you read the threads on the lighting)
Then the wounds to the neck are not noticeable, they won't reflect any light.

Steve

[FrankO]

Despite everything I read about Paul/Cross examining the body of Nicholls I have yet to understand how, when one or the other of them says that they tried (unsuccessfully) to pull down her skirts, that Paul touched her breast and fancied he felt her take a breath. Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but either the clothing was lifted far above the waist for Paul to get hold even of a hem or there was some other reason for him touching the breast(!). All information appears to show the clothing was no further up than mid-thigh. So why was Paul's hand anywhere near a breast? Could it be that Paul was lying? [Please don't go down Fishy's 'agonal gasp' idiocy in any answers but try and stick to the question. Thanks]

Hi John,

What I think was the case is that the hem was indeed resting on the breast area and that the skirt at the front side was folded halfway between the ankles and the breast area, i.e. around the hips. That way, only the legs were uncovered and from the hips up still covered, although one would be looking at the inside of her lower part of her skirt. I hope you understand what I mean.

All the best,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Despite everything I read about Paul/Cross examining the body of Nicholls I have yet to understand how, when one or the other of them says that they tried (unsuccessfully) to pull down her skirts, that Paul touched her breast and fancied he felt her take a breath. Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but either the clothing was lifted far above the waist for Paul to get hold even of a hem or there was some other reason for him touching the breast(!). All information appears to show the clothing was no further up than mid-thigh. So why was Paul's hand anywhere near a breast? Could it be that Paul was lying? [Please don't go down Fishy's 'agonal gasp' idiocy in any answers but try and stick to the question. Thanks]

Hi John Trent,

The hem would normally come to her ankles. If you pull that up and place it near her chest, then the fold will be mid thigh ish. So to pull down a dress that is exposing up to the thighs one would grab the hem that is near the chest.

Something like that I imagin.

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

Fair enough, and the Lloyd's article is clearly filled with inaccuracies.

- Jeff

I'd also better rephrase that to "...conflict appears between an inquest testimony and a newspaper interview that isn't a report of the actual inquiry..." because otherwise it will undoubtedly be pointed out that the details we have of the inquests have come via... etc...

[JeffHamm]

Sorry Jeff, I should have been clearer, I meant when they were each addressing the inquest.

(Edit to add: Where any conflict appears between an inquest testimony and a newspaper report, I'd generally default to the one where the risk of perjury existed...)

Fair enough, and the Lloyd's article is clearly filled with inaccuracies.

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

He was allowed to search Pickford's 19th Century records and there was nothing pertaining to individual employees.

So long story short there is zero evidence Charles Lechmere actually worked for Pickfords????

[John Trent]

Despite everything I read about Paul/Cross examining the body of Nicholls I have yet to understand how, when one or the other of them says that they tried (unsuccessfully) to pull down her skirts, that Paul touched her breast and fancied he felt her take a breath. Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but either the clothing was lifted far above the waist for Paul to get hold even of a hem or there was some other reason for him touching the breast(!). All information appears to show the clothing was no further up than mid-thigh. So why was Paul's hand anywhere near a breast? Could it be that Paul was lying? [Please don't go down Fishy's 'agonal gasp' idiocy in any answers but try and stick to the question. Thanks]

[rjpalmer]

According to the Pickfords website - "In 2012, a descendent [sic] of Charles Latchmere [sic] searched the Pickfords archive to find any reference to her relative. No records were found". It's under 1888 in the timeline.

That could mean the records for Cross/Lechmere were lost. It could mean that the records were in the archive, but that his descendant could not find the records. It could mean that only the name Charles Lechmere was searched for and he was employed as Charles Cross.

See the following link, Post #74.

Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords?? - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

"Lechmere," is Ed Stow.

He was allowed to search Pickford's 19th Century records and there was nothing pertaining to individual employees.

[Fiver]

How could Lechmere see Paul approaching 40 yards away; when he and Paul BOTH couldn't see Nichols with mortal cuts and her eyes open from less than 2 yards away?

Unless they were both long-sighted, then that doesn't make sense.


RD

Lechmere didn't say he saw Paul at 40 yards. He said he heard him at that distance.

[Fiver]

"Wasn't there a story Lechmere's family got to look at some records and were unable to find their ancestral name in "the records"?"

That's not something I've heard about, where did you read/hear that?

According to the Pickfords website - "In 2012, a descendent [sic] of Charles Latchmere [sic] searched the Pickfords archive to find any reference to her relative. No records were found". It's under 1888 in the timeline.

That could mean the records for Cross/Lechmere were lost. It could mean that the records were in the archive, but that his descendant could not find the records. It could mean that only the name Charles Lechmere was searched for and he was employed as Charles Cross.

[Fiver]

Now it may have been dark, but not as dark as it was in the case of Stride. It was also light enough for Lechmere to notice Nichols in the first place.

After all, he was standing in the road when he saw her, so it couldn't have been that dark.

If it was, he would't have seen her at all from his position.

But we know from his testimony that he drew Paul's attention to the body, meaning he knew that Nichols was there before Paul arrived.

In this instance, the excuse of darkness, is not Lechmere's friend.

We know that Lechmere was walking on the pavement and saw something on the other side of road, then moved into the middle of the road to figure out what it was. We also know that PC Neil needed his lantern to notice that Nichols throat was cut and her eyes were open. Paul and Lechmere were not the only ones to comment on the darkness and the police accepted their account that it was too dark to see the wounds or the blood.

"It was dark at the time, though there was a Street lamp shining at the end of the row." - PC Neil

"It was dark at the time." - Dr Llewellyn

"Witness did not remember waking up until she heard a knock at the front door about 4 o'clock in the morning. She opened the window and saw three or four constables and two or three other men. She saw the body of deceased lying on the ground, but it was still too dark to clearly distinguish what had happened." - Emma Green

"Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the
intention of informing the first constable they met." - Inspector Abberline, police report

" Neither appear to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot." - Coroner Baxter