Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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

[A P Tomlinson]

None of the early press reports had Lechmere standing by the body. It is a modern concoction by the Lechmerians.

The Lechmerian case is based on their interpretation of a single ambiguous account.

" It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was." - Robert Paul, 2 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News

In the other accounts, Paul makes it clear that Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road."

Assisted by a certain documentary showing him crouched over the body as Paul approaches...

[A P Tomlinson]

It's also worth noting that the eyes of animals are much easier to see in the dark because they have what is known as the tapetum lucidum--a layer of tissue behind the retina that reflects light and allows them to see at very low light levels, but also allows us to seem their eyes in the dark.

Cats are famous for it, but other animals have it, too---if they are nocturnal.

Humans don't have it, because we evolved to be more active in the daytime. Human eyes are not particularly reflective of light.

It's why every indoor photo I've ever taken of my dogs makes them all look like evil, soulless Hell Hounds.

[rjpalmer]

PC Neil is the only witness to comment on seeing Nichols' eyes were open. Even he seems to have noted the slit throat first, and he had a lantern. We should also consider that the eyes can open after death.

It's also worth noting that the eyes of animals are much easier to see in the dark because they have what is known as the tapetum lucidum--a layer of tissue behind the retina that reflects light and allows them to see at very low light levels, but also allows us to seem their eyes in the dark.

Cats are famous for it, but other animals have it, too---if they are nocturnal.

Humans don't have it, because we evolved to be more active in the daytime. Human eyes are not particularly reflective of light.

[Fiver]

Some may of course disagree, but seeing as Nichols eyes were open, and 2 of them both got close to her to examine her; with at least one of them physically touching her, then it becomes rather odd as to why neither of them could see she was dead, or at the very very least, dying.

PC Neil is the only witness to comment on seeing Nichols' eyes were open. Even he seems to have noted the slit throat first, and he had a lantern. We should also consider that the eyes can open after death.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,


But there's no report that suggests that either Cross/Lechmere or Paul noticed the state of her eyes. Given they didn't notice her throat had been cut to the spine, I think it's not a stretch to indicate that the reason they don't mention her eyes as being open is probably because they didn't take note of that fact either.

Which sort of suggests that they did not know she was dead at that time, doesn't it?

They never said they touched her, so what would compel them to add that later apart from being questioned (either by a reporter or the police) about everything they did and so mentioning things that, at the time, they considered inconsequential? If they thought she was probably just passed out drunk at the time they were talking to PC Mizen, then their very brief examination would be viewed by them as mentioning an irrelevant detail.

Sure, but we have all the information now, and we now know those early reports are not correct, which is fairly typical of the earliest news stories. It takes time for the facts to get determined, so many such details change from the less reliable initial coverage. The same occurs today, not just in 1888.

The location was quite dark. Remember, Cross/Lechmere couldn't even make out it was a person until he got half way across the street. They also didn't see that her throat was cut, or that there was blood on the ground beside her. It is how little they noticed that indicates to me their "examination" of her was very brief, in the order of a few (10ish maybe?) seconds - just long enough to pull her dress down and maybe touch her arm or face, and it was during that when Paul brushed against her and thought he may have noted her breathing. I suspect most of the time they were there, which was not long, was spent in discussion of what to do, rather than actually doing anything (i.e. Paul suggesting let's sit her up, etc and Cross/Lechmere saying no.)

Again, this to me is just another indication that it is unlikely they actually thought she was dead at that time.

Because they didn't think she was dead, but just drunk and in need of assistance. As rj points out, attitudes towards street woman was not positive, so while they probably felt they should alert the police, they clearly weren't going to raise a fuss over it. They do later, when the find out she had been murdered, but at the time they are acting like two men who think she's just passed out.

Given he did not examine Tabram, he would not have known if her eyes were open or closed, so that point doesn't count. Also, there is nothing to indicate that either Cross/Lechmere or Paul noticed one way or the other Nichol's eyes.

Again, there's no indication that Cross/Lechmere or Paul took note of her eyes, so the fact they were open doesn't matter if they didn't notice that. They didn't notice her throat had been cut either, but it was, and PC Neil noted that too.
But it wouldn't be uncommon to see people sleeping rough in the general area. Perhaps, though, if Buck's Row was uncommon to have rough sleepers, that is partly why Cross/Lechmere and Paul chose to have a brief look.

We only get them saying they thought she was outraged after they had heard of the murder. Their actions at the time, combined with PC Mizen's inaction, suggests that was not something mentioned at the time.
(and I think you mean ... why did neither of them see ANY of her wounds?). I have been suggesting they didn't see them because it was dark and they spent very little actual time examining her.

Actually, it makes their reaction entirely expected provided they are not of the belief she is dead, which is what I'm suggesting. That at the time they spoke to PC Mizen, their belief was that she was passed out, and in all probability, because she was drunk. The idea that she had been "outraged" or "was dead", might have been something they thought had a remote possibility at the time, but not one they appear to have seriously entertained at the time. However, once they hear she was murdered, and violently so, those thoughts become amplified and their memory of what they believed at the time changes. That is not uncommon.

When he first noticed her, he thought she was a piece of tarpaulin. It's not until he gets half way across the street that he can make out it was a person. PC Neil only notices the blood when he shines his lantern on her.

The darkness would make the blood hard to see, and failing to notice her throat was cut to the spine tells us they didn't examine her closely, or for long. Similar to how we know Llewellyn did a very cursory examination at the scene given he didn't know her abdomen had also been attacked.


In the end, everything you've mentioned points to Cross/Lechmere and Paul spent a very brief time with Nichols and left her believing she was drunk and passed out. They may have had some slight concerns it may have been something more serious, but if so they appear to consider that as being far less likely. As such, they would feel no need to rush around looking for the police, but would send her assistance if they came across a PC. If they truly thought she was dead, they would be more apt to respond as others who found a body and recognized the person had been murdered. Their actions point to them having beliefs that are different from what they later say after hearing that she had been murdered. Such changes are not uncommon, and I've just been suggesting that we can evaluate their beliefs at the time by a careful examination of their actions at the time. And to me, their actions point to two men who did not realise or believe she was dead when they left her, but rather thought she was sleeping off a drunk.

It's just an interpretation, of course, not a fact. But I think it is an interpretation that fits the facts as we have them.

- Jeff

I still think it is unbelievable how 2 men couldn't see her eyes were open from such close proximity.

Also, by stating that they helped with her clothing and Paul brushed past her etc...that is evident of at least one of them being close enough to tell if her eyes were open.

As a natural human reaction to see if another human is in distress, what are the things we look for instinctively to alert us?

We check for signs of breathing, both audible and visual
We check for signs of response, any kind of response to an audible or visual command/prompt
We check the eyes, to see if the person is responsive optically, i.e. looking at us, moving their eyes in response to us, alertness through their eyes and facial movements.

I think that the justifiable reason why they didn't notice the eyes, is because they did notice she was staring into space and unresponsive, and knew she was dead.

And then upon realizing she was dead, they walked off...

So...

Perhaps the conversation went a little like this...




L - "Is she dead?"

P - "I'm not sure, let's check her"

L - "No, I'm not going to touch her"

P - "Why not?"

L - "I just don't think we should, just in case we get into trouble"

P - "Oh, but you're fine with me doing it though"

L - "Well, I just wasn't sure what to do"

P - "But it was you who called me over in the first place"

L - "Yeah, to help check her for me instead"

Paul doesn't respond

P - "have you not checked her yet then?"

L - "No, I only just noticed her, i thought she was some tarpaulin at first. I couldn't make out what it was until I got a bit closer"

P - "Yeah, I can see how you could miss her lying here like this, what with it being such a wide street an'all"

L - "And it's dark"

P - "Yeah... I guess it is...you did give me a fright when i saw you standing in the middle of the road like that"

L - "So, you saw me then?"

P - "Yeah, of course I did"

L - "What, even in the darkness?"

P - "Well, it's not that dark really is it? I've seen darker"

L - "Where?"

P - "Dutfield's yard...pitch black that place. You should try it out sometime"

L - "Oh, I know that area fairly well as it happens; my mother lives just around the corner"

P - "Nice"

pause

L - " I didn't mean to scare you by the way old chap"

P - "Not to worry dear fellow, at least you weren't closer to her when I first saw you"

Paul laughs

Lech ignores Paul

(Pinter style silence)

L - "Looks like she's been outraged"

P- "yeah, I agree"

moves clothes out of dignity

P - "Hey, wait a moment, I think she might be breathing!"

L - "Really? How can you tell?"

P - "I just brushed past her and thought I felt some movement"

L - "What should we do?"

P - "Let's call for help"

L - "No"

P - "What do you mean, No?!"

L - "i think we should go find a Policeman first"

P - "Yeah, you're right, best not to wake the neighbours eh?!

L - "Yeah, exactly"

P - "Good, let's split up!"

L - "No"

P - "No again? Why not split up?"

L - "I think we should stick together"

P - "Why's that?"

L - " It will look better if we go together"

P - "Oh right...I see what you mean"

L - "Plus I am late for work"

P - "Yeah, me too"

L - " I left late this morning...of all the days eh?"

P - " I know, what are the chances?"

Lech doesn't respond

L - "Are you sure she might still be alive?"

They both look at her together

P - "Well if she was...she isn't now!"

L - "What do you mean?"

P - " Well, look at her eyes"

L - "What about her eyes?"

P -"They're open"

L - "And?..."

P - "Well, unless she is an eye-staring contest champion, she has been staring up at that roof for ages"

L - "How can you tell, I can't see her eyes, are you sure they're open?"

P - "Are you longsighted by any chance?"

They both look closer

Both look at each other in unison

Both - "Yeah, she's a goner alright"

L - "So, what are we going to do now?"

P - "Let's go find that policeman"

L - "Yes, I agree, let's go!"

P - "Hold on...wait a minute..."

L - "What is it?"

P - " Well, seeing as she's dead...and we are late for work..."

L - "I don't quite follow you"

P - "Let's just go..and IF we bump into a copper...then we will just tell him he's needed in Bucks Row"

L - " Great idea!"

P - "Good, let's go!"

Paul goes to walk WEST

L - "No, let's go this way!"

Gestures East

P - "But my work is in that direction"

L - "So is mine..I work at Pickfords"

P - "Ah do you, my mate has another mate who's brother's cousin works there"

L - "Really, what's his name?"

P - "Charlie Cross"

Lech doesn't respond

P - "Do you know him?"

L - "Can't say I do"

P - " Well, anyway, we've been here for 7 minutes talking now, we should move along before anyone thinks we did it!"

L - "Can you imagine?!"

they both laugh and then walk EAST, away from their work


Despite being on their way to work


And the rest is history as they say.



So, there you have it...

The moral of the story is...

If you think a woman has been raped or murdered and is unresponsive, then please call for help by any means possible and with as much urgency as possible.


Here endeth the lesson Mr Paul and Mr Lechmere



RD

[Fiver]

Interestingly there were a couple of very early press reports they had Paul find Lechmere standing by the body, but that was obviously changed officially at the inquest and in statements to the police to reflect that Lechmere was instead seen standing in the middle of the road.

The idea that Lechmere was reported as having been seen standing by the body is NOT a modern concoction created by Lechmerianists, it was in the press at the time also.

None of the early press reports had Lechmere standing by the body. It is a modern concoction by the Lechmerians.

The Lechmerian case is based on their interpretation of a single ambiguous account.

" It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was." - Robert Paul, 2 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News

In the other accounts, Paul makes it clear that Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road."

[Sam Flynn]

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?

Much easier to see (and hear) a 5-foot-something man lumbering towards you, silhouetted against what light there was, than to notice dark red blood in a dark street, especially against dark clothing. Even when wide open and in broad daylight, the eyes are a small target - a mere 2cm across - and if they were only partially open, they'd be an even more difficult to notice, especially in the dark. As for the mortal cuts, even Dr Llewellyn - a trained medical practitioner - had to wait until he was at the mortuary before noticing that Polly had practically been decapitated and her guts were bulging out.

[rjpalmer]

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

It can be pitch black where you are standing--unable to see your own two feet or the hand in front of your face--but you can still see people in the distance, depending on the background lighting or the lighting near them.

Go wander the darkened streets tonight and you'll soon see for yourself.

It's entirely possible.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD, Lechmere said that he saw a shape and then crossed into the street, suggesting he was on the northern pavement to begin. At first he was not clear what he saw, it was just a dark shape.



Yes, his testimony clearly says, he saw a shape on the opposite side of the road, crossed into the road to get a better look, and stopped as he realised it was a woman. It was only at this point he saw it was a body.
At the SAME time, he heard footsteps and turned to see Paul around 40 yards behind him, suggesting before he stopped Paul was around 50 yards behind.
So yes he clearly realised it was a woman, at the same time he heard Paul.

Dusty did a good article in Ripperologist some years back, looking at this very point.
I also cover it in some depth in Inside Bucks Row.

That Lechmere had to cross into the road to make it what the shape was, surely indicates it was very dark.
There is a recent thread on here which looks at the lighting in Bucks Row

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/829584-location-of-lamps-etc

There is also a long , but older thread on Jtrforums, "Polly by Gaslight" that is worth a read.

Steve

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

[FrankO]

Interesting question. Obviously we can never know their reasons for not mentioning examining Polly to PC Mizen, but your question got me thinking on that. One idea that I came up with, and not claiming it is the best, goes like this.

Paul estimates that no more than 4 minutes pass between when he first saw the body and the time they found PC Mizen. Doing a quick measurement just now, the distance from the crime scene to PC Mizen is roughly 922 feet, which at an average walking pace of 3.2 mph would require 3m 16s. That leaves 44 seconds at most for them to examine the body (provided Paul's estimate of a maximum of 4 minutes is accurate of course). Given they discuss what to do and so forth, the actual examination of Polly can't have been more than minimal at best, perhaps little more than touched her face, and pulled down her dress, brushing her chest in the process.

Given that's hardly an "examination", at the time it is quite clear they didn't "know" she was dead (only perhaps wondered if she might be, but to me their statements sound more like they considered that unlikely at the time but now, knowing she was, are talking about it as if they were more confident than they were - that's common human behaviour after all).

So, as it appears they didn't really do much, it wouldn't necessarily occur to them to mention it as it is sort of subsumed in their saying they found her in the first place. It's only after they realise she was actually murdered, and have to give more detailed statements to the police of their actions, that those actions come out. That would also be why they are more concerned about getting on to work and getting past PC Mizen - they really thought it most likely she was just drunk and the police could take care of her.

One of the complicated aspects of dealing with statements over time, as more information becomes available to the witness, is that as they become aware of things they did not know at the time that new information influences how they describe what their thoughts were at that time! We have to try and look at what they say after learning more, and try and work out through their actions, what distortions might be in play. Obviously, we can never do this perfectly, and at best we can just hypothesize on what those distortions might be, and how large or small they are.

Anyway, while certainly not decisive, I think their failure to mention their examination, the probability that they spent very little actual time examining her, tend to point to the probability that at the time they really weren't all that convinced she was dead, and didn't really consider what little they did to be anything important. Paul's Lloyd's article shows all the signs of modifying the past to the present after learning that the woman he came across was dead, throat cut, and mutilated. Hearing that probably spooked him a great deal, and we're seeing his reaction and thoughts in response to the new information, not getting a description of his reaction and thoughts at the time of the actual event.

Thanks for your reply, Jeff. And you've, in turn, given an interesting view of your own. I think that what you're suggesting may very well, at least in part, explain why they didn't mention to Mizen that they'd examined Nichols.

If I were to hazard a guess, though, then I'd still say it was because they wanted to avoid the risk of being taken back to the crime scene as they simply didn't want to loose any more time in getting to their places of work. Because, after all, even though the examination didn't extend some touching and feeling, Lechmere did get out of his way to get Paul's attention and make him at least see the woman.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

If the police fetched up Paul "in the middle of the night," and he lost a full day's pay (he must have normally started work around 4 a.m.) might this not suggest that the police treated him rather unceremoniously, and kept him down the nick with questions?

It sure might, Roger - thanks for pointing me to it.

Sadly, we have no further details about this midnight welcoming party, but I don't get the impression from the above that the police treated Paul in a naive, blinkered, and trusting manner and I doubt Lechmere received much better.

Opinions will vary, but I can agree to a fair extent with yours.

Cheers,
Frank

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi A P Tomlinson,

I may be mis-remembering, but I thought Paul says in the Lloyd's article that he told PC Mizen she was dead? It's a bit confusing at times about what happened, but from the inquest testimonies (where I think both men are doing their best to remain accurate), it comes across to me as if any mention of her being dead (if that was even said at all), was not presented to PC Mizen with any real signs that they actually believed that. Given PC Mizen's fairly unhurried response to their report, I would find it hard to believe that they were in any way agitated about what they believed they had come across, which again leads me to suspect that at the time neither carman thought she was dead or had been "outraged", but was just drunk. They may have had some sense that something was a bit off, but they do not really seem to have conveyed that to PC Mizen, so more of a niggling suspicion than a full blown concern. By the time the inquest came around, though, having heard she was murdered, etc, that would inflate their original suspicions into a sense of "I knew it all along". It happens, and at the moment at least, I'm wondering if this is a case of it happening.

- Jeff

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...)

[JeffHamm]

I think Cross reported saying to Mizen that he believed she was "...either dead or dead drunk" and Paul who said that he thought she was dead?

As far as I remember Mizen didn't comment on what he thought either man said beyond that she was lying in the street.
According to Mizen he only spoke to one man, and aside from the newspaper report, Robert Paul didn't say what, if anything, he told Mizen.
Only Cross gave an account of the actual conversation, and when asked if he had seen Neil and/or told Mizen there was another policeman in the Row, and stated "no" in both instances, that didn't prove suggestive enough that he was lying while a copper was telling the truth to warrant further questioning.

Probably because they already had realised after reading Pauls story on the Sunday, that Mizen had cocked up to a monumental level first by ignoring them, then not even asking their names, and worst of all not even telling anyone he had met them, leading to PC Neil walking into the inquest and telling Wynne Baxter that HE had been the first to find the body, when Mizen should have put the investigation straight on Friday, and the police SHOULD have been busy looking for the two men he let walk away.
An embarassment compounded by Lloyd's getting there ahead of them and telling Pauls story!

Hi A P Tomlinson,

I may be mis-remembering, but I thought Paul says in the Lloyd's article that he told PC Mizen she was dead? It's a bit confusing at times about what happened, but from the inquest testimonies (where I think both men are doing their best to remain accurate), it comes across to me as if any mention of her being dead (if that was even said at all), was not presented to PC Mizen with any real signs that they actually believed that. Given PC Mizen's fairly unhurried response to their report, I would find it hard to believe that they were in any way agitated about what they believed they had come across, which again leads me to suspect that at the time neither carman thought she was dead or had been "outraged", but was just drunk. They may have had some sense that something was a bit off, but they do not really seem to have conveyed that to PC Mizen, so more of a niggling suspicion than a full blown concern. By the time the inquest came around, though, having heard she was murdered, etc, that would inflate their original suspicions into a sense of "I knew it all along". It happens, and at the moment at least, I'm wondering if this is a case of it happening.

- Jeff