Was he lying?

[John Wheat]

As an impartial observer, without a dog in this fight, it is apparent that some members of this forum are intent on conducting a vendetta against Christer and Ed, in their absence. It appears to me that several of those members are single suspect advocates who are objecting to other single suspect advocates. Would it be unreasonable to request that arguments be presented on their own worth rather than the constant resort to the pillaring of those with differing points of view?

Hi GBinOz

I understand what you are saying however this is a situation the Lechmereians have themselves to blame for. In the past they have high jacked threads. Inserting Lechmere into threads that have nothing to do with Lechmere. There general conduct. The way they insist that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong etc.

[GBinOz]

As an impartial observer, without a dog in this fight, it is apparent that some members of this forum are intent on conducting a vendetta against Christer and Ed, in their absence. It appears to me that several of those members are single suspect advocates who are objecting to other single suspect advocates. Would it be unreasonable to request that arguments be presented on their own worth rather than the constant resort to the pillaring of those with differing points of view?

[Geddy2112]

It is time to pull back the curtain and reveal the figure crouching behind it. Cross stated that he left his home in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green at 3.20 a.m. arriving in Buck’s Row at 3.40 a.m.

Well we know the glaring issue with this hypothesis, he appears to be about 10 mins out in favour of an innocent Cross. So twisting of the evidence and cherry picking evidence to suit is a long established method then. Shame collaborated evidence seemed to be out of favour.

The author Paul Harrison has given the most damning account of Charles Cross’s demeanour on the murder night:

“Cross told the police that, as he stood over the body in Buck’s Row, he heard footsteps approaching from behind. In panic he stood back in the shadows and hid from the approaching person. Cross claimed he had hid because he thought the footsteps might have belonged to the woman’s attacker, who was returning for a second attack.”……Certain people clearly went to the same school of imaginative evidence appraisal as Paul Harrison. (Harrison has been discredited in recent years though of course)

I've not read Harrison but indeed we can maybe see where Christer got his influences from. Not sure in the many 1000s of posts I've read on the subject I've ever seen it suggested Cross made that statement to the police.

[Geddy2112]

....Certain people clearly went to the same school of imaginative evidence appraisal as Paul Harrison. (Harrison has been discredited in recent years though of course)

Many thanks, much appreciated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The genesis of the Cross Roadshow……




The Man Who Was Jack The Ripper by Derek Osborne

From Ripperana No. 33 - July 2000



At a time between 3.40 and 3.45 on the morning of Friday 31 August 1888, Robert Paul a carman of Doveton Street, Cambridge Heath Road, Bethnal Green, passed along a cobble-stoned back street known as Buck’s Row. Here he encountered a man standing on the pavement ahead of him. Paul stepped into the road to pass him but the man tapped him on the shoulder beckoning him to look at the body of a woman lying on the pavement. Uncertain of whether she was dead or merely drunk, the two men went in search of a policeman. A few minutes later on Baker’s Row, at the junction of Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street, they found PC Mizen and informed him of their discovery. The two men then carried on along Hanbury Street. Paul’s newly acquired companion was a man called Charles Cross who, like Paul, also earned a living as a carman. At the end of Hanbury Street Paul turned into his place of work in Corbett’s Court while Cross continued on to his own employment at Pickford’s in Broad Street.

In the meantime PC Mizen, hurrying down Buck’s Row, found another Constable standing by the woman lying on the pavement. This was P.C. Neil, whose beat included this narrow street. By the light of his lantern he had already established that the woman was dead, and that her throat had been cut. Dr. Ralph Llewellyn, called from his home, in nearby Whitechapel Road, stated on his arrival at 4 a.m. that the woman had been dead no more than half an hour. The body was removed to the mortuary, where it was discovered that the abdomen had been severely cut in several places, so much so, that her intestines were exposed. There were also found, two deep stab wounds in the woman’s private parts. The body was eventually identified as that of 44 year old Mary Nicholls, who had been separated from her husband for a number of years. She had recently been staying at a common lodging house in Spitalfields, from where, on the night of her death, with no money for her bed, she had been turned away. Yet, for someone with empty pockets, she soon became remarkably drunk. An hour before she was murdered, she was seen staggering east, along Whitechapel Road. This was the last reported sighting of Mary Nicholls. But what if Charles Cross, what information could he offer? Not much, according to this carman. Cross stated that he left his home at 3.20 a.m. and came across Nicholls on the pavement at 3.40 a.m. At first glance he assumed that the form lying on the pavement was a tarpaulin, until he looked closer. Then Robert Paul came along and Cross asked him to look at the woman. Being unsure of her condition they decided to look for a Constable.

Inspectors Abberline and Spratling headed the investigation into the murder of Mary Nicholls. But after many frustrating weeks, Abberline was to report:

“Enquiries were made in every conceivable corner with a view to trace the murderer but not the slightest clue can at present be obtained.”

But Abberline was wrong!

It is now time to re-examine the events that took place in Buck’s Row. When Cross entered the backstreet there was no figure or movement ahead of him. There was no fleeting shadow to be observed, no echoes of sound, as from someone running. Yet something or someone must have disturbed the murderer.

This conclusion is supported by the injuries he inflicted on the victim. The slashes and cuts, through which the intestines protruded, were evidence of a toying, the prelude to an act that was the feature prominently in subsequent murders. Namely, the killer’s compulsion to remove internal organs from the bodies of the victims. Which, in the case of Mary Nicholls, was denied to him. Therefore, it is logical to reason that he was indeed prevented from completing his self-appointed task.

As to the arrival of Robert Paul on the scene, the press reported:

‘A man cam along and witness (Cross) spoke to him. They went and looked at the body. Witness having felt one of the woman’s hands and finding it cold, said “I think she is breathing.” He wanted witness to assist in shifting her but he would not do so. He did not notice any blood as it was dark.’

Paul thought she was breathing. Whether a heart beat or an involuntary muscular spasm, it indicated a weak signal was still trying to pass along circuits already, inexorably, closing down. This seems quite remarkable in view of the savagery inflicted on Nicholls. Yet that weak signal, the dying reflex, suggests that Cross must have entered Buck’s Row close to the time of the murder, but he saw no figure, nor heard a sound.

When P.C. Neil came across Nicholls blood was still oozing from the wound in her throat. Dr. Llewellyn who had arrived at e.00 a.m. stated that the woman had been dead no more than half an hour. As to the time taken to inflict her injuries he gave a time of between 4 and 5 minutes. Nicholls, then, was murdered only minutes before Cross had arrived. If Cross had arrived but a few minutes earlier, he would surely have stumbled across the murderer in the act. That somebody did is escapable, in view of the evidence presented above.

It is time to pull back the curtain and reveal the figure crouching behind it. Crossstated that he left his home in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green at 3.20 a.m. arriving in Buck’s Row at 3.40 a.m. This seems a reasonable time to cover the distance from Bethnal Green, which lies about twenty minutes walk north of Buck’s Row. However the blanket of Bethnal Green spreads wide. And a study of a map of that area show Doveton Street to be much closer to the Row than might at first be assumed. I measured the distance between Doveton Street and found a different time of arrival at Buck’s Row to that given by Cross. Deciding it was imperative I confirm my findings, I journeyed to the East End. From Doveton Street to Buck’s Row, (today Durward St.). I covered the distance in eight minutes.

Therefore, Charles Cross must have arrived at Buck’s Row at or about 3.30 a.m., instead of 3.40 a.m., the time he gave to the police.

Cross then, may have remained in Buck’s Row for a period of some ten minutes.

If the carman had continued his normal walk, he should, by this time have bern half a mile away, passing Brick Lane, heading for the City and Broad Street, his place of work. Yet we find him delayed in Buck’s Row, why?

The astonishing answer that suggests itself, dictates that Charles Cross at a time unknown and unsuspected by the police was in fact murdering Mary Nicholls, in the darkness, outside some stable gates in Buck’s Row.

‘Harriet Lilley, whose house was only two doors away from the scene of the murder, told the inquest that she heard whispering in the street at about 3.30 a.m. she thought she heard several gasps and moans and awakened her husband. They both strained their ears for further sounds but the noise of a passing train denied them and they went back to sleep.’

At the approach of Robert Paul, Cross should have fled. But, momentarily disorientated, he hesitated. When questioned by the police, his explanation of his actions on the night of the murder was glib. He had mistaken Nicholls’ corpse for a fallen tarpaulin, which might be useful in his job as a carman.

The author Paul Harrison has given the most damning account of Charles Cross’s demeanour on the murder night:

“Cross told the police that, as he stood over the body in Buck’s Row, he heard footsteps approaching from behind. In panic he stood back in the shadows and hid from the approaching person. Cross claimed he had hid because he thought the footsteps might have belonged to the woman’s attacker, who was returning for a second attack.”


……


Certain people clearly went to the same school of imaginative evidence appraisal as Paul Harrison. (Harrison has been discredited in recent years though of course)

[Geddy2112]

Ah bugger was looking forward to reading that. I would have thought online versions of these would exist by now. Thanks for trying.

[GBinOz]

I’ll have a look for it Lewis. What’s the betting I have one issue missing!

Nope. No difference at all. Why the different sizes when they all come out the same? I just wanted to post the article for those that haven’t read it but might want to. It can’t be done so I give up. Totally pissed off with tech. Nothing….and I mean NOTHING….is straightforward.

I thought I was the only one. It's all part of the curse. As Al says in Married with Children - "Too much for you Bundy".

[Herlock Sholmes]

I doubt this will be any better.

Nope. No difference at all. Why the different sizes when they all come out the same? I just wanted to post the article for those that haven’t read it but might want to. It can’t be done so I give up. Totally pissed off with tech. Nothing….and I mean NOTHING….is straightforward.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Useless! I took the photos. Emailed them to myself reducing the size. Post them on here and when you make them bigger they aren’t readable. I hate technology more than I can put into words!!!





Page one of the article. Large size. Still useless. I’ll try ‘full size’ then give up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, whenever I try to do anything like this it ends up being a disaster but here goes.

[Geddy2112]

Have you read the article Geddy?

No sir I was waiting for you to find the correct edition.. [/lazy b'tard]

[Lewis C]

I’ll have a look for it Lewis. What’s the betting I have one issue missing!

If you're missing that issue of Ripperana, you could check to see if you have the 2002 issue of Ripper Notes. That would still give a picture of the perceived case in the early stages.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

According to the wiki article on Lechmere. that is right. Osborne proposed this in the July 2000 issue of Ripperana. According to our site, Osborne also wrote about it in the October 2002 issue of Ripper Notes.

I’ll have a look for it Lewis. What’s the betting I have one issue missing!

[Lewis C]

I’m pretty sure Derek Osborne was the first to suggest him in Ripperana over 20 years ago. I don’t think that he knew about the name straight away and I don’t know how much later he found out about it. If I knew which issue it was I could check later today (I’m pretty sure that I’ve got all of them)

Hi Herlock,

According to the wiki article on Lechmere. that is right. Osborne proposed this in the July 2000 issue of Ripperana. According to our site, Osborne also wrote about it in the October 2002 issue of Ripper Notes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Will be of course interesting to find out your thoughts on that...

Have you read the article Geddy?