Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[rjpalmer]

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

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

See the following link, Post #74.

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

"Lechmere," is Ed Stow.

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

[John Trent]

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

[Geddy2112]

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

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

[JeffHamm]

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

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

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

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

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

- Jeff

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

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi John Trent,

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

Something like that I imagin.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

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

Hi John,

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

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

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

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


RD

Totally different things RD.

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

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

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

Steve

[Elamarna]

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

[Elamarna]

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

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

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[FrankO]

Hi John Trent,

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

Something like that I imagin.

- Jeff

I see you beat me to it, Jeff.

[Abby Normal]

so lech hears and or sees paul approaching when theyre about 40 yards apart in bucks row but neither do as they are walking toward bucks row? according to lech his hesitation in bucks row sounds like its only seconds, maybe Thirty seconds or so until he notices paul. how do they not notice each other before then?

[Sam Flynn]

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

How much of Pickfords' employment records have survived from the relevant period/depot?

[rjpalmer]

How much of Pickfords' employment records have survived from the relevant period/depot?

"I was very kindly invited to visit Pickford's headquarters and have gone through every extant record relating to the 19th century - which is a surprisingly large amount of material. However there are no personnel records."

Ed Stow, 9-23-2012