Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
it was crow on his way to work. he thought she was sleeping as he had seen people sleeping there before.

and they said nichols was dead or drunk. but also said they might have detected breathing. either way in obvious need of aid and care, not the cavalier oh well if we run into a copper well tell him attitude.

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

[rjpalmer]

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.

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.

[Fiver]

"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.

That's what I was guessing, but the Pickford's website doesn't say that and, so far as I know, the descendant who supposedly tried to look through the records didn't say that there are no records.

[Abby Normal]

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

hi jeff
it was crow on his way to work. he thought she was sleeping as he had seen people sleeping there before.

and they said nichols was dead or drunk. but also said they might have detected breathing. either way in obvious need of aid and care, not the cavalier oh well if we run into a copper well tell him attitude.

[Fiver]

Hi Frank,

you will no doubt recall the following from Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, 30th September 1888

"Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing...."

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?

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.


RP

Things to consider are that Lechmere went to the police, while Paul went to the press. Also, Paul's initial account badmouthed the entire force, while Lechmere's only portrayed PC Mizen negatively. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't try to confirm Lechmere's account, but they likely had a better opinion of him than they did of Paul.

[JeffHamm]

I think the reason why they didn't mention their examination of Nichols, was because they already knew she was dead.

Her eyes wide open, unresponsive and blood oozing from a severe cut in her throat.

If they already knew she was dead, then that would give them a reason to not tell the policeman about having examined her.

They must at the very least realized that Nichols was in some kind of distress

If they thought she was alive, you would expect them to have reacted with more intensity and urgency by calling for help or running to tell a policeman that a woman was dying in the street.

If they knew she was dead, it then helps their defense; because a dead woman on the street wouldn't have required urgent help the same way a woman who was dying would have.


RD

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

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Frank,

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.

- Jeff

I think the reason why they didn't mention their examination of Nichols, was because they already knew she was dead.

Her eyes wide open, unresponsive and blood oozing from a severe cut in her throat.

If they already knew she was dead, then that would give them a reason to not tell the policeman about having examined her.

They must at the very least realized that Nichols was in some kind of distress

If they thought she was alive, you would expect them to have reacted with more intensity and urgency by calling for help or running to tell a policeman that a woman was dying in the street.

If they knew she was dead, it then helps their defense; because a dead woman on the street wouldn't have required urgent help the same way a woman who was dying would have.


RD

[drstrange169]

"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.

[JeffHamm]

...
What keeps nagging at me, though, is the notion that the police had every reason to get cleared up why Lechmere & Paul didn't tell Mizen that they'd examined the body. After all, the most obvious reason for doing so for them would be to get past Mizen and why would they want to get past him? Could there be any nefarious reason behind it, or was it just that they didn't want to loose time being taken back to Buck's Row?
...
Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

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.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Content-free.

[Mark J D]

Have you actually looked into this woman? Found out what she is actually like? The things that she’s said about people? Her attitudes?

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

"I know what you mean."

-- Get in the bin. Both of you.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

"I know what you mean."

-- Never far beneath the surface, is it, boys?

M.

Have you actually looked into this woman? Found out what she is actually like? The things that she’s said about people? Her attitudes?

What is certainly noticeable Mark is that you scrupulously avoid discussing the details of this case. You just keep jumping in with snarky comments and digs trying to make it seem that any that disagree with the ‘Cross version’ is some kind nasty zealot with some kind of ‘issue’ bubbling beneath the surface. Why do you have to keep resorting to the same obvious tactic?

This is a forum for discussing the details of the case. Those that don’t rate Cross do exactly that on here. What is your contribution? Why don’t you try it?

[Mark J D]

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

"I know what you mean."

-- Never far beneath the surface, is it, boys?

M.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hello, A. P.,

There was a researcher on this website around 1999-2003 named Peter Birchwood who suggested, in a single post, that perhaps Cross should be examined on the principle that he had been spotted alone in Buck's Row with Nichols' dead body. The suggestion garnered little or no interest at the time, and Peter was unaware that the carman's birthname had been Lechmere.

Around the same time, April 2002, another researcher named John Carey published a very brief piece called 'Chasing Shadows - Charles Cross' in Ripperana, No. 40, which aimed some suspicion in his direction.

It wasn't until five years later, when Cross was identified Lechmere that he took off as a suspect in a series of articles penned by Michael Connor in The Ripperologist.

You can find all the citations for these articles on Charles Allen Lechmere's Wikipedia page (yup, he has one!).

I've just been reading Michael Connor's piece. Good work.
Interesting to read that he felt both Cross and Paul may have had... Alarm Clocks! Which I thought interesting.
A quick bit of digging revealed that a company in America had been mass producing them for about 8 years by that time, I'm going to have a bit more of a dig and see when they first hit the UK, and whether they would be a realistic addition to the average East End Carman's boudoir.

Edit To Add: I'm now rather intrigued and keen on finding the 2007 piece by Osborne, "The Man Who Hated George Lusk".

[rjpalmer]

As a relative novice to the various fora and online discussions, I admit to not being fully up to speed on a certain matter regarding the suspicions over Mr Cross/Lechmere. Hoping some of the... more experienced members could help me out.

Given the volume of evidence that has been cited in claiming his guilt, am I to assume that this was all part of a "Cross is guilty!" bandwagon long BEFORE it was discovered that he had used his step-fathers name in court?
If all this evidence is SO OBVIOUS... it must have been all the rage before the name "Lechmere" crawled on set?

Were people like Christer bending time and redefining physics to re-tell the story of Polly Nichols' blood loss BEFORE that came out?
Was Eddy running "The House Of Cross" as a user group on Yahoo.com?

Hello, A. P.,

There was a researcher on this website around 1999-2003 named Peter Birchwood who suggested, in a single post, that perhaps Cross should be examined on the principle that he had been spotted alone in Buck's Row with Nichols' dead body. The suggestion garnered little or no interest at the time, and Peter was unaware that the carman's birthname had been Lechmere.

Around the same time, April 2002, another researcher named John Carey published a very brief piece called 'Chasing Shadows - Charles Cross' in Ripperana, No. 40, which aimed some suspicion in his direction.

It wasn't until five years later, when Cross was identified Lechmere that he took off as a suspect in a series of articles penned by Michael Connor in The Ripperologist.

You can find all the citations for these articles on Charles Allen Lechmere's Wikipedia page (yup, he has one!).