Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Fiver]

The question you might ask is why did Lechmere want to keep his family name (& address) out of the local papers?
And why did he show up at the inquest dressed like Alfie Doolittle in his work clothes, instead of dressing up for the occasion, like someone who aspired to respectability and would eventually have his own business?

Ah, the oft repeated myth about people wearing their Sunday best for the inquest.

Now lets try looking at the East London Observer, which provided a lot of description compared to the other newspapers.

"Before the coroner sat the woman who had identified the deceased as Martha Turner, with a baby in her arms, and accompanied by another woman - evidently her mother - dressed in an old, brown figured pompadour." - Tabram Inquest

"The first witness called was a Mrs. Elizabeth Mahoney - a young woman of some 25 or 26 years, plainly clad in a rusty-black dress, with a black woollen shawl pinned round her shoulders." - Tabram Inquest

"Alfred George Crow was the next witness. In appearance, he was a young man of about twenty-three or four, with closely cropped hair, and a beardless, but intelligent face, and wore a shabby green overcoat." - Tabram Inquest

"Mary Ann Connolly, otherwise known as "Pearly Poll", was next introduced, wearing simply an old green shawl and no hat, her face being reddened and soddened by drink." - Tabram Inquest

"Amelia Palmer, the next witness, a pale dark-haired woman, who was poorly clad, said: I live at 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, a common lodging-house." - Chapman Inquest

"The next witness was James Cable, a man from Shadwell. A youngish-looking man, with a bullet head and closely cropped hair, and a sandy close-cut moustache; he wore a long overcoat that had once been green, and into the pockets of which he persistently stuck his hands." - Chapman Inquest

"Her evidence was not very material, and she was soon replaced by John Richardson, a tall, stout man, with a very pale face - the result, doubtless, of the early hours he keeps as a market porter - a brown moustache, and dark brown hair. He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat, and dark brown trousers." - Chapman Inquest

"Piser wore a dark overcoat, brown trousers, and a brown and very battered hat, and appeared somewhat splay-footed - at all events, he stood before the Coroner with his feet meeting at the heels, and then diverging almost at right angles." - Chapman Inquest

But somehow Charles Lechmere wearing his work clothes is supposed to be suspicious.

[Fiver]

I regard your second point as far more critical than the proposed 7 minute time gap. Cross and Paul should have been aware of each other walking down Buck's Row. The fact that they testified that they were not raises the possibility that the reason was that Cross was stationary at the time.

Thats not an accurate summary of their testimony. Cross testified that shortly after he saw the body, he heard Paul behind him at an estimated distance of 40 yards. Paul testified that he saw Cross in front of him, but Paul was never asked how far that distance was or when he first saw Cross. Paul was never asked if he heard Cross before he saw Cross.

[rjpalmer]

Had Cross dressed up like Alfie Doolittle in his Sunday best, is there any doubt that his accusers would now be suggesting that it was a calculated move---putting on a bogus façade of respectability to alleviate suspicion?

Ted Bundy wore a bowtie to court.

He must have been innocent.

[Lewis C]

Here's another question for you: why did Lechmere stop and wait some 20 - 30 seconds for Paul, when he had identified there being a woman in distress lying on her back? Wouldn't it make more sense to quickly check up on her condition before he accosted Paul. Most people would do that, particularly if they stopped out of a sense of concern. And yet he just stood there and waited for Paul. Strange!

And why did he suddenly hear footsteps at that point, in the middle of the road, when a guy was supposedly walking right behind him for some 2 minutes?

Hi Newbie,

When Cross stopped walking, two things happened that would have made it easier to hear Paul. One is that being stationary while Paul was moving, Paul would have gotten progressively closer to Cross. The other is that there would no longer be any sound from Cross' footsteps to drown out other noises.

[The Baron]

Paul testified that he saw Cross in front of him

This is new to me, what do you mean exactly here? That he saw cross walking in front of him, or the usual saw a man standing in the middle of the street ?


The Baron

[Fiver]

This is new to me, what do you mean exactly here? That he saw cross walking in front of him, or the usual saw a man standing in the middle of the street ?


The Baron

"He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road."

Paul testified that he saw Cross in front of him, but Paul was never asked how far that distance was or when he first saw Cross. Paul was never asked if he heard Cross before he saw Cross.

[Fiver]

And as for the address, although he furnished it to officials, it has already been well hashed out that he most likely did not mention his address at the inquest - all but one newspaper failing to mention it, as opposed to most other witnesses.

That idea has little traction outside of Lechemerian echo chambers. Inquest proceeding did allow for a witness to not publicly state their address, but it was at the discretion of the coroner, not the witness. And it was unusual enough that the press usually commented on it.

Which leaves two possibilities.

* Charles Cross publicly asked the coroner to be allowed to not give his home address at the inquest. None of the newsmen mentioned this unusual action. The reporter from the Star, an evening paper, chose to ignore the coroner's wishes and get the information from the court clerk. The court clerk chose to ignore the coroner's wishes and give the information to the reporter. Having spent the time to get Cross' home address, the reporter didn't take the time to record Cross' first name, let alone his middle name. The coroner, upon finding his wishes had been defied, did nothing to censure the reporter or the court clerk.

* Cross gave his home address at the inquest. Only one paper mentioned it.

Yet Lechmerians think the first option his more likely.

[GBinOz]

Thats not an accurate summary of their testimony. Cross testified that shortly after he saw the body, he heard Paul behind him at an estimated distance of 40 yards. Paul testified that he saw Cross in front of him, but Paul was never asked how far that distance was or when he first saw Cross. Paul was never asked if he heard Cross before he saw Cross.

Hi Fiver,

You are absolutely correct - those questions were not specifically asked. But both men's testimony was in the form of a narrative. When I hear Paul saying "As I was passing up Buck's row I saw a man standing in the roadway", I deduce by implication, as apparently did the Coroner, that that was the first time that he became aware of Cross. Likewise, when Cross testified "He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.", the implication is that that was the first time he heard footsteps behind him. But I agree that it would have been better if Baxter had asked those specific questions.

There were several reports at the time that Buck's Row was not all that badly lit. This contemporary illustration seems to support that possibility, although there still exists the possibility that the lamp shown opposite wasn't working on the night in question.



If that lamp was working it should have silhouetted Cross's movement to Paul, and it should have enabled the men to see the blood, unless the blood wasn't there at that time. The St James Gazette reported Paul as testifying "He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not.". How can someone kneel and place their head next to a person's face and not see blood only inches away, particularly if there was a working light across the road?

Paul told the reporter from Lloyd's Weekly News "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw." Did Cross strangle Polly, and was interrupted in the mutilations by Paul, and could not risk that Paul's observation of signs of life may have allowed Polly to recover. Did Paul move off first, allowing Cross just enough time to cut Polly's throat and quickly catch Paul up? This would explain why Paul didn't see the blood, and vindicate Lewellen's opinion that the mutilations were done first. Pure speculation, of course.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

Here's another question for you: why did Lechmere stop and wait some 20 - 30 seconds for Paul, when he had identified there being a woman in distress lying on her back? Wouldn't it make more sense to quickly check up on her condition before he accosted Paul. Most people would do that, particularly if they stopped out of a sense of concern. And yet he just stood there and waited for Paul. Strange!

That's not an accurate description of events. Cross had just identified that there was a woman "lying in front of the gateway". Nothing in either Cross or Paul's testimony indicates that they immediately assumed that the woman was in distress.

And why did he suddenly hear footsteps at that point, in the middle of the road, when a guy was supposedly walking right behind him for some 2 minutes?

That's a Lechmerian myth. Available evidence is that Robert Paul was walking about 50 yards behind Charles Cross, not right behind him.

[rjpalmer]

There were several reports at the time that Buck's Row was not all that badly lit. This contemporary illustration seems to support that possibility, although there still exists the possibility that the lamp shown opposite wasn't working on the night in question.



If that lamp was working it should have silhouetted Cross's movement to Paul, and it should have enabled the men to see the blood, unless the blood wasn't there at that time.

Hi George.

Dawn that morning was recorded as 4:36 a.m., and sunrise as 5:11. There had been no shortage of police officers (as well as Dr. Lewellyn) at the scene while it was still dark (3:45-4:30) along with civilians, and one assumes that the next time PC Neil walked his beat he would have been acutely aware of the lighting conditions at 3:40-3:45 a.m. when he again walked past the gates.

If there was something wildly implausible in the account given by Cross and Paul about not being able to see the wounds/blood, wouldn't the police or Dr. Lewellyn have soon realized it? It was after all, a rather important element at the inquest.

Cheers.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

Dawn that morning was recorded as 4:36 a.m., and sunrise as 5:11. There had been no shortage of police officers (as well as Dr. Lewellyn) at the scene while it was still dark (3:45-4:30) along with civilians, and one assumes that the next time PC Neil walked his beat he would have been acutely aware of the lighting conditions at 3:40-3:45 a.m. when he again walked past the gates.

If there was something wildly implausible in the account given by Cross and Paul about not being able to see the wounds/blood, wouldn't the police or Dr. Lewellyn have soon realized it? It was after all, a rather important element at the inquest.

Cheers.

Hi RJ,

I have to admit that you present a very good case. Of course Neil and Llewellyn had the advantage of examining the body by the aid of a lamp. Would they necessarily have turned off their lamps to ascertain what could be seen in the dark? Llewellyn testified:

"On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long.".

I struggle to imagine how wounds of this size, contrasting with white skin, could have been missed from such a short distance. JMO.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

What was Charles Cross wearing on the morning of August 31st? We can be a 100% certain I suppose but surely he’d have been wearing the clothes that he worked in? It would make most sense. We’ve all seen a photograph of a Pickford’s carman sitting on his wagon and I’ve seen at least one other photograph of a carman dressed in the same way - with a long, rough apron. And that often used quote from The Star:

“That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron)”

Do we have anything that might confirm that this was how Cross was dressed on the morning of the murder? We have Mizen quoted in the Morning Advertiser on September 4th as saying:

"You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman.”

In The Star of the 3rd Mizen (spelt Myzen in the piece) said that Cross “…looked like a carman.”

How else could he have appeared to have been a carman unless he dressed in a way that was usual for a carman? This appears to suggest then that Cross was identifiable as a carman that morning which leaves us with a very obvious question -


Would a serial killer wear clothing that made him stand out? That might have allowed some witness to have told the police - well, he was dressed like a carman (especially so close to, and on the way to, Pickford’s.


It doesn’t seem likely to me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To late to edit but in the first light ‘we can’ should read ‘we can’t’ of course.

[Geddy2112]

To late to edit but in the first light ‘we can’ should read ‘we can’t’ of course.

...and maybe edit from 'light' to 'line'

[Herlock Sholmes]

...and maybe edit from 'light' to 'line'