Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[A P Tomlinson]

8th May 2008 - Fisherman -





Erm sometime after the 8th May 2008 I would suggest

Cheers Geddy.
I may print that and pin it on my cork board!

[Geddy2112]

8th May 2008 - Fisherman -

No, Cross is not a very good suggestion as the Ripper. To begin with, at the inquest Cross stated that he heard the approaching footsteps of Paul from around forty yards away - but still waited for him to come up to the spot where Nichols lay. It was pitch dark - so dark that the two men did not see the blood running from her neck - and there must have been every chance to leave the scene unseen had he been the Ripper.
Also, if he WAS the Ripper, it would be a very strange thing to go looking for a policeman carrying the knife that killed Nichols on his person - for it was not found at the murder site.

I think that we can safely write off Cross as a contender.

The best,
Fisherman

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?

Erm sometime after the 8th May 2008 I would suggest

[A P Tomlinson]

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?

[Geddy2112]

* The witness gave his name as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, and said he had worked as a carman for Pickfords for about 20 years and and started his shift at the Broad Street station at 4am.
* Records show that the man living at 22 Doveton was a 39 year old carman named Charles Allen Lechmere.
* Thomas Cross became his stepfather when Charles was 8 and died when Charles was 20.
* Charles Allen Lechmere was listed as Charles Cross in the 1861 Census, when he was 11 years old.

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"

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.

The linked website for some bizarre reason talks about Charles W Lechmere a man with a different middle name, different age, different birthplace, and different address than Charles Allen Lechmere.

The witness who gave his name as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, and said he had worked as a carman for Pickfords for about 20 years and and started his shift at the Broad Street station at 4am was definitely carman Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, the stepson of Thomas Cross.

Thanks, this is the problem though. There are contradictions in 'evidence' and a great deal of confusion on who worked where and what they were actually called. Coincidence maybe but it could allow the possibilty for the confusion between the two men or the one man with two names.

Surely if Lechmere worked for Pickfords then they would have the correct name. Or if his correct name was Cross then he never gave a false name at the inquest. I think Herlock stated correctly it's all very circular... and rather confusing.

Although the linked website appears to be run/ran by some erm.. I'll let you allow your own adjective here, there seems the possibility of Cross/Lechmere being two unrelated people and if so would completely ruin the 'on his way to work' Geographical 'evidence' we are told about. The 'Karen' does post a great deal of census/historical data to back up her claims, although as already mentioned she seems as we would put it where I'm from 'away with the mixer.'

[rjpalmer]

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?

I would find it rather odd if it ever turned out that the police didn't get this cleared up.

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

[Fiver]

Thank you. Surely that causes some confusion though. Also a possibility the Cross/Lechmere 'investigation' has some crossed wires. This is all hurting my head a bit now with this name changing shenanigans.

1) 22 Doveton Street Charles gave his name at the inquest as Cross and said he worked for Pickfords.
2) There was a Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords.
3) There is no record of a 'Lechmere' working for Pickfords. (Who did 22 Doveton Street Charles work for?)
4) Charles Cross and Charles Allen Lechmere were two different people.
5) How did Lechmere know to give 'Cross' as a name since there was a Charles Cross working for Pickfords.
6) Wonder what the late book read at Pickfords

The above are not statements of fact rather just enquiries. Sorry all quite confusing.

* The witness gave his name as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, and said he had worked as a carman for Pickfords for about 20 years and and started his shift at the Broad Street station at 4am.
* Records show that the man living at 22 Doveton was a 39 year old carman named Charles Allen Lechmere.
* Thomas Cross became his stepfather when Charles was 8 and died when Charles was 20.
* Charles Allen Lechmere was listed as Charles Cross in the 1861 Census, when he was 11 years old.

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"

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.

The linked website for some bizarre reason talks about Charles W Lechmere a man with a different middle name, different age, different birthplace, and different address than Charles Allen Lechmere.

The witness who gave his name as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, and said he had worked as a carman for Pickfords for about 20 years and and started his shift at the Broad Street station at 4am was definitely carman Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, the stepson of Thomas Cross.

[FrankO]

hi frank. yes we do, because Abberline in his report said he "interrogated him (hutch)and found his statement to be true."
but i see your point with the rest.

Thanks Abby, I had all forgotten about that little phrase.

[Abby Normal]

Do we really know that Hutchinson was investigated? Anyway, we know the other two were, so you do have a point.

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?

I would find it rather odd if it ever turned out that the police didn't get this cleared up. But, of course, it's also possible that Lechmere & Paul, or at least one of them, told the police that they did that and why the very first time they spoke to them, giving their original statement and didn't come across as nervous or suspicious.

Cheers,
Frank

hi frank. yes we do, because Abberline in his report said he "interrogated him (hutch)and found his statement to be true."
but i see your point with the rest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

I know what you mean.

[Geddy2112]

There were carmen named Charles Cross. But the carman who lived at 22 Doveton was Charles Allen Lechmere.

Thank you. Surely that causes some confusion though. Also a possibility the Cross/Lechmere 'investigation' has some crossed wires. This is all hurting my head a bit now with this name changing shenanigans.

1) 22 Doveton Street Charles gave his name at the inquest as Cross and said he worked for Pickfords.
2) There was a Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords.
3) There is no record of a 'Lechmere' working for Pickfords. (Who did 22 Doveton Street Charles work for?)
4) Charles Cross and Charles Allen Lechmere were two different people.
5) How did Lechmere know to give 'Cross' as a name since there was a Charles Cross working for Pickfords.
6) Wonder what the late book read at Pickfords

The above are not statements of fact rather just enquiries. Sorry all quite confusing.

[Geddy2112]

Geddy, I’ll confidently guess that ‘Karen’ is Karen Trenouth who posted on here before my time and got banned by Ally....

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

[FrankO]

maybe. maybe not. so no we would not necessarily know i think. however, we do know other witnesses were, like richardson, barnett and hutch so i lean towards that we would probably know if lech was.

Do we really know that Hutchinson was investigated? Anyway, we know the other two were, so you do have a point.

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?

I would find it rather odd if it ever turned out that the police didn't get this cleared up. But, of course, it's also possible that Lechmere & Paul, or at least one of them, told the police that they did that and why the very first time they spoke to them, giving their original statement and didn't come across as nervous or suspicious.

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Self correction.

Reeves didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He went in search of a policeman.
Crow didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He ignored the body and kept walking.

Nobody immediately shouted for help. Nobody immediately went to the police. Yet only Lechmere (and sometimes Paul) are criticized for it.

I believe the argument goes something like "That's because the others weren't guilty, while Cross/Lechmere was a cunning psychopath who knew how to act exactly like an innocent person."


- Jeff

[Fiver]

It's one of many things that Lechmerians say point to guilt, but only for Charles Lechmere.

Crow didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He went in search of a policeman.
Davis didn't shout for help when he found Chapman's body. He contacted some other men nearby, showed them the body, and then went in search of a policeman.
Diemschutz didn't shout for help when he found Stride's body. He contacted some other men nearby, showed them the body, and then went in search of a policeman.
PC Watkin didn't shout for help when he found Eddowes' body. He contacted another man nearby, showed them the body, and that man ran to fetch more police.
Bowyer didn't shout for help when he found Kelly's body. He contacted another man nearby, showed them the body, and both men went in search of a policeman.
Lechmere didn't shout for help when he found Nichols' body. He contacted another men nearby, showed them the body, and both men went in search of a policeman.

So how is Lechmere different?

Self correction.

Reeves didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He went in search of a policeman.
Crow didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He ignored the body and kept walking.

Nobody immediately shouted for help. Nobody immediately went to the police. Yet only Lechmere (and sometimes Paul) are criticized for it.

[drstrange169]

"So how is Lechmere different?"

One big difference is, all those you listed found a mutilated body, Cross and Paul did not. I can't emphasis enough how big a difference that is to peoples reactions.

Cross went to the police disputing the police contention that Neil found the body first.
At the inquest he disputed the previous witness's testimony.
The only person that could support his claims was missing and had to eventually be forcibly taken in the middle of the night for severe questioning.

It's very hard to believe that the police did not conduct at least some kind of investigation into the veracity of Cross's story.