Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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

[drstrange169]

"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?

[Elamarna]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Geddy2112]

"Thanks for that, I saw her picture, got scared and left..."

"I know what you mean."

-- Get in the bin. Both of you.

'While Internet has transformed the world into a global village, it has also given a voice to people who would have been considered the village idiots.'

[Sam Flynn]

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.

There are numerous pitfalls inherent in the reportage, or "Rippertage" as the case may be, especially in early reports of the earlier murders. Clearly, they can't be taken as being in any way definitive. However, a committed suspectologist can treat a tabloid newspaper's 3rd-person précis in a single report (e.g. "standing by" instead of printing out in full "he was standing in the middle of the road opposite the body") as if it carried the same weight as a sworn, signed witness statement taken at an inquest.

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.

I don't think anyone's saying it's a modern concoction. However, what IS a modern concoction is Lechmerians turning "standing by the body" to "standing over a freshly-killed corpse" or, even more sinister, "he was CAUGHT standing over a freshly-killed corpse".

[JeffHamm]

Hi RD,

I agree Jeff

The key differences though with Tabram and Nichols...

Nichols had her eyes open, amplifying the visual likelihood she was dead

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.

There were 2 men in Paul and Lechmere and neither of them reacted typically to people who had just found a dead body.

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

The mistake they made was subsequently saying they had examined Nichols. It feels a little like their hand was forced because initially they never said they touched her.

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.

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.

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.

I don't believe that Lechmere was the killer because he has NO connection to any of the other murders and no evidence of a history of violence.
However, if Nichols was to be viewed as a solitary kill, then for me, Lechmere AND Paul would both come under scrutiny; not because they were guilty, but because thier combined reaction was atypical.

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.

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.)

They walk off and conveniently meet Mizen, who judging by his reaction was almost certainly not told to hurry.

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

Can we blame Mizen's seemingly lacklustre reaction when 2 men both fail to relay to him the message with even a hint of urgency. It's no wonder that Pc Neil was already with Nichols when Mizen got to the scene; the men had no real intent to get Mizen to Nichols quickly.

But why was that?

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.

It is also important to highlight the key differences with Tabram.

A witness saw Tabram and essentially just left her, but...


He did NOT examine her
Tabram had her eyes CLOSED
The witness had seen people sleeping in the same spot before

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.

Whereas with Nichols...

She was examined by TWO men
Nichols had her eyes OPEN; as proven by Pc Neil and the mortuary photos
It wasn't a regular spot for people to sleep it off

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.

Note also that BOTH Lechmere and Paul stated they thought Nichols had been raped.
Now if they both could identify she had been raped, why did neither of them fail to see ANY of her wounds?

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.

When you combine...

Both getting close enough to examine her
Neither realizing she was dead
Both walking off to find a policeman with no audible alarm given by either men.
A lack of urgent reaction by Mizen due to not being relayed the seriousness of the situation

It leaves Lechmere and Paul's reaction particularly atypical considering the circumstances.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RD

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

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Abby,

They do both say they mentioned the possibility she was dead to PC Mizen, so I could easily be wrong. But to me, for what it is worth, their actions appear to reflect that their belief was that she was just drunk and passed out, with the idea of her being dead only a remote possibility. Again, I am not claiming I know what they were thinking, only presenting what it appears like to me, and what it appears like to me may be different from the truth of course.

- Jeff

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!

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

While we can never know what they actually knew, obviously, if they knew she was dead, particularly if they saw the blood from her throat etc, I would expect them to react much more like all the other people who found murdered victims, where they run looking for help (nobody else seems to casually walk off in case they find the police after finding someone they know is clearly dead and murdered). Their actions appear to me to be more in line of two people finding someone they think is just passed out drunk, or even just sleeping rough, (neither of which was uncommon) but perhaps in need of some aid.

Hmmm, actually I think there was one person who passed by Martha Tabram's body and did nothing at all other than went home to bed, or maybe it was off to work, I forget at the moment. But again, in that case I believe they didn't realize she had been murdered but just mistook her for someone sleeping rough in the stairway, and that is much more like the reaction of Cross/Lechmere and Paul.

- Jeff

I agree Jeff

The key differences though with Tabram and Nichols...

Nichols had her eyes open, amplifying the visual likelihood she was dead

There were 2 men in Paul and Lechmere and neither of them reacted typically to people who had just found a dead body.

The mistake they made was subsequently saying they had examined Nichols. It feels a little like their hand was forced because initially they never said they touched her.

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.

I don't believe that Lechmere was the killer because he has NO connection to any of the other murders and no evidence of a history of violence.
However, if Nichols was to be viewed as a solitary kill, then for me, Lechmere AND Paul would both come under scrutiny; not because they were guilty, but because thier combined reaction was atypical.

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.

They walk off and conveniently meet Mizen, who judging by his reaction was almost certainly not told to hurry.

Can we blame Mizen's seemingly lacklustre reaction when 2 men both fail to relay to him the message with even a hint of urgency. It's no wonder that Pc Neil was already with Nichols when Mizen got to the scene; the men had no real intent to get Mizen to Nichols quickly.

But why was that?

It is also important to highlight the key differences with Tabram.

A witness saw Tabram and essentially just left her, but...


He did NOT examine her
Tabram had her eyes CLOSED
The witness had seen people sleeping in the same spot before

Whereas with Nichols...

She was examined by TWO men
Nichols had her eyes OPEN; as proven by Pc Neil and the mortuary photos
It wasn't a regular spot for people to sleep it off

Note also that BOTH Lechmere and Paul stated they thought Nichols had been raped.
Now if they both could identify she had been raped, why did neither of them fail to see ANY of her wounds?

When you combine...

Both getting close enough to examine her
Neither realizing she was dead
Both walking off to find a policeman with no audible alarm given by either men.
A lack of urgent reaction by Mizen due to not being relayed the seriousness of the situation

It leaves Lechmere and Paul's reaction particularly atypical considering the circumstances.

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.



RD

[A P Tomlinson]

"That could mean the records for Cross/Lechmere were lost."

When I asked many years ago, Pickfords said there were no records of any kind for the period. I believe everyone else that got the same answer.

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"?
.

[JeffHamm]

But both Robert Paul and Charles Cross admitted publicly that they thought Nichols had been raped ("outraged").

"I thought she had been outraged and had died in the struggle." --Robert Paul, quoted in Lloyd's, 2 September.

"In his opinion, deceased looked if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon." Charles Cross's inquest testimony, paraphrased in Lloyd's, 9 September.

Another account has Cross deposing that "from the position of the body he formed the opinion she had been outraged."

It's difficult to whitewash their behavior if, by their own admission, they left a rape victim on the pavement. It shows just how little street women were regarded in East London in the Victorian era.

Hi rj,

Fair enough, however, by the time Paul is talking to Lloyd's he has already heard she was murdered. His descriptions, therefore, may very well be influenced by that later knowledge rather than his statements reflecting what he thought at the time in question. It's just a possibility, and I could very well be wrong of course and that your suggestion that it reflects the low regard people had for street woman at the time is the more closer to the truth. The Lloyd's article, though, seems to be Paul at his most combative, and his assertions made there are both more definite, and specific, than he later testifies to in the inquest (and before he's spoken to the police, who appear to come get him based upon that interview). Their behaviour at the time would be based upon their beliefs at the time, while their later statements would, or at least could, reflect their beliefs after having learned more about the situation.

We do have them saying they mentioned the possibility that she might be dead to PC Mizen, but the way that gets described sounds to me like they were not very convincing on that (indicating they probably didn't believe she was at the time, but something did strike them as being off - perhaps nothing more than her complete lack of responding).

Anyway, I don't claim that what I suggest is the only possibility, but I do think it is worth being on the table as representing on end of the spectrum of possibilities, and nothing more than that.

- Jeff