Was he lying?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

Hi John,

With all due respect, I have observed other single suspect advocates dismissing discussion on the basis that it disagrees with their chosen offender. While I may have missed it, I have not observed Christer resorting to disparaging the opinions of others on the basis of their selection of a preferred person of interest. Christer has not posted in some time, yet he is still being attacked. Ed even more so.

Cheers, George

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

With all due respect, I have observed other single suspect advocates dismissing discussion on the basis that it disagrees with their chosen offender. While I may have missed it, I have not observed Christer resorting to disparaging the opinions of others on the basis of their selection of a preferred person of interest. Christer has not posted in some time, yet he is still being attacked. Ed even more so.

Cheers, George

Hi GBinOz

Fair point however I still think this is a situation created by the Lechmereians however I don't necessarily think it's correct to attack people who haven't posted for a while.

Cheers John

[GBinOz]

Hi GBinOz

Fair point however I still think this is a situation created by the Lechmereians however I don't necessarily think it's correct to attack people who haven't posted for a while.

Cheers John

Thanks John,

I wonder if it fair to judge the level of commitment to the opinions of "Lechmereians" when others have equally strong opinions on other persons of interest?

Cheers, George

[Geddy2112]

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?

Apologies, but to be fair it's quite difficult to discuss most aspects of the Lechmere case without mentioning Ed or Christer. Believe me they are still very vocal on the theory with near weekly YouTube videos on the theory and 100s of Facebook posts. Yes I agree the addressing of Ed or Christer's posts should maybe be taking place where Ed or Christer can 'defend' themselves however as you are probably aware they are both banned from here and JtRForums for a reason and although I was not present at the exact times of their crimes against Forum kind I can probably guess with some accuracy reading back and reading what they put on Facebook as to the reasons.

For the record the last few House of Lechmere videos have been attacking other people's suspects and work. I posted 'another side of the coin' here to illustrate Robert Paul could have just as easy been Jack as Lechmere, a rather tongue and cheek approach. That got the 'nutty column' treatment by Ed on HoL. Then we had his attacking Kosminski as a suspect and then we have him calling the BBC documentary a HOAX with all guns blazing all the while defending the sham that is the Missing Evidence. Lastly we have of course had him outright attacking Tracy L' Anson's book (whilst wielding it in his hands) with flawed reasoning on a recent HoL video... so for me if they get a rough ride they most certainly deserve it... let him who has not sinned cast the first stone so to speak.

I've said numerous times any self respecting author(s) would put out their theory and bar any updates would leave it at that. These two are the complete opposite of that.

I've mentioned a few months ago the reason for my personal hiatus from here and why I tend to concentrate my efforts on the 'Lechmere' side of things - mainly because it's still a 'hot topic' because of Ed's videos and Christer's postings. I'm starting threads like this one to find out more accurate information in a safer environment. You do not get a safe discussion environment with Ed or Christer around because they twist facts, bend the language and produce mountains of word salad and if that does not work they resort to petty insults. There is no point in having a Lechmere conversation with the YouTube crowd because it's like talking to the village idiots, you can't on Facebook because you get drowned out by the evidence twisting, petty insults and wordy swerves. So I for one apologise for my partaking in such Lechmere related subjects but as outlined I have my reasons. For the record though I've never gone against Lechmere because I've a preferred suspect, because I don't have one and I doubt I ever will because of the sheer lack of facts relating to this case. For me to point the finger I'd have to me be mighty sure... and I doubt I ever can be.

I'm just trying to learn as much as I can about this aspect of the case in a safe to do environment where I'm not going to be attacked because I do not believe a man on his way to work is one of the most famous serial killers in history. So my apologies George if I've upset you with my postings, that certainly was not the intention.

[Lewis C]

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)

Thank you for posting this, Herlock. From this article, it seems that the Lechmere theory originated from the mistaken idea that Cross left home at 3:20, as the gap between 3:20 and 3:40 appears to be the primary reason given here for suspecting Cross.

[Geddy2112]

Thank you for posting this, Herlock. From this article, it seems that the Lechmere theory originated from the mistaken idea that Cross left home at 3:20, as the gap between 3:20 and 3:40 appears to be the primary reason given here for suspecting Cross.

Yes, I believe there are two Newspapers quoting 3:20am but they seem to be from a common source as they are nearly word for word the same. I believe five (I think) quote the about 3:30am. If Lechmere killed Polly and left home at 3:20 he must have spent a while looking for her or should have had loads more time to 'finish the job' and bugger off...
For me if he started work at 4am and it's a 40 min walk to work then 3:20am is a more reasonable time for him to leave. Being definite about it being 3:20am when he left home is I'm not sure helpful or not for the Lechmere theory. I think it just provides different problems and not much in the way or solutions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for posting this, Herlock. From this article, it seems that the Lechmere theory originated from the mistaken idea that Cross left home at 3:20, as the gap between 3:20 and 3:40 appears to be the primary reason given here for suspecting Cross.

Yes, this was pre-Lechmere time. You can see a disregard for the evidence creeping in from Harrison too, having Cross standing over the body.

I keep meaning to have a look through some old Ripperana’s and Rippetologists (yes, I have paper one’s )

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I believe there are two Newspapers quoting 3:20am but they seem to be from a common source as they are nearly word for word the same. I believe five (I think) quote the about 3:30am. If Lechmere killed Polly and left home at 3:20 he must have spent a while looking for her or should have had loads more time to 'finish the job' and bugger off...
For me if he started work at 4am and it's a 40 min walk to work then 3:20am is a more reasonable time for him to leave. Being definite about it being 3:20am when he left home is I'm not sure helpful or not for the Lechmere theory. I think it just provides different problems and not much in the way or solutions.

As a general point, I wonder how employers were in regard to timekeeping in those days? Because of the absence of alarm clocks and the reliance on things like knocking up I wonder if they made allowances for a very few minutes here and there? It would seem reasonable but people aren’t always reasonable.

[Fiver]

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?

I agree that there are a fair number of single suspect advocates who are very good at poking holes in the theories of other suspects, but who become rather defensive of other people doing the same with their favorite suspect. When it comes to Lechmerian theories, it's a balancing act. Names of top proponents should not be unnecessarily dragged in, but it can be hard to discuss Lechmerian views without addressing the claims of the most vocal Lechmerian theorists. Could we discuss Druitt without referring to Macnaghton? Gull without mentioning Knight? Sickert without mentioning Cornwell?

[Geddy2112]

As a general point, I wonder how employers were in regard to timekeeping in those days? Because of the absence of alarm clocks and the reliance on things like knocking up I wonder if they made allowances for a very few minutes here and there? It would seem reasonable but people aren’t always reasonable.

I believe there were two clocking in machines invented actually in 1888 - however I think these were both American.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe there were two clocking in machines invented actually in 1888 - however I think these were both American.

I vaguely recall a documentary where an old soldier was employed as a Timekeeper for a company and it triggered a Sherlock Holmes memory. From The Red Circle:

“Mr. Warren is a timekeeper at Morton & Waylight’s in Tottenham Court Road.”

From the dictionary of occupational terms:

”Other types of timekeeper might (i) record entry and departure of workpeople in a book. (ii)Have charge of timekeeping clocks, and checkboards and suprintend "Clocking In" & "Clocking Out" Locks and unlocks clock mechanisms at specified times, prepares card for each worker with his/her name and number. Sometimes may compute times hours worked during each week, and make returns to cashiers department. Sometimes in charge of Gate and Weighbridge.”

So it would seem likely that bigger companies would have employed a timekeeper. Especially one like Pickford’s with carts going in and out at all hours.