Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Polly's Skirts - Lechmere The Killer.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Regardless of what Llewellyn thought, doesn't the Chapman murder a week later suggest that the throat was cut first? It seems odd that the m.o. would change this much between Nichols and Chapman. The order of injury for Nichols is in doubt but for Chapman seems clear given the arterial spray - so shouldn't we assume Jack cut Polly's throat first too?
    Last edited by Barnaby; 06-09-2024, 04:47 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      Hi Frank,

      Llewellyn said what he said. If we chose to differ on the basis that some other conclusion makes more sense, then that contradiction has to be expressed as an in-absentia opinion 130 years after the event in opposition to the observations of the medical professional who examined the body immediately after Polly's life force was extinguished. I generally try to refrain from adjusting evidence on the basis that it doesn't seem to make sense, and try to conceive of a scenario that fits the evidence.

      Your new avatar seems to have transmogrified your image from impish scallywag to reflective elder. I rather liked the impish scallywag.

      Best regards, George
      Hi George,

      No need for apologies. As you’ve noted, I’m a reflective elder now, so I can handle it. And it’s not as if you were actually saying something about me, because I did exactly what you wrote: "that contradiction has to be expressed as an in-absentia opinion 130 years after the event in opposition to the observations of the medical professional who examined the body immediately after Polly's life force was extinguished."

      I said it was just my view that it wouldn’t make much sense to me if, as is proposed by Christer, Lechmere only cut the throat not just once, but twice as a way to ‘prepare’ Nichols before taking his place in the middle of the street before Paul could see or hear him (something that Lechmere simply couldn’t have known). I clearly didn’t (try to) adjust any evidence (I don’t think I ever do that or try to, as it’s simply impossible).

      So, the only thing I wrote that you might want to have a go at is me stating a personal view, based on something that fits or, as in this case, doesn’t fit my sense of logic. Nothing more, nothing less.

      As for your observation about my avatar, I’ll take it into consideration.

      All the best,
      Frank
      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
        Like you, I tend to think Jack learned along the way; I believe he incapacitated Nichols and lowered her to the ground, began to cut her abdomen, which could have led to her regaining consciousness and struggling, or groaning or similar, whereupon he cut her throat in order to silence her and kill her, so he could continue with the mutilations uninterrupted.

        In his next kills, he knew to start on the throat before mutilating the abdomen.
        Hi Kattrup,

        This is how I see it, too. If Nichols's killer cut the throat after he mutilated the abdomen or had started to do so, she might have regained consciousnouss and started groaning, whereupon he cut her throat. If Tabram is to be considered a Ripper victim, I see the same sort of thing possibly there: after first stabbing at her in a rage, he worked up her skirts and had just started on her abdomen, Tabram perhaps groaned and he started stabbing her throat and finished after 9 stabs to silence her.

        The best,
        Frank

        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

        Comment


        • #49
          I think that we’re all guilty of giving the Cross theory far too much air time. Apologies for the repetition btw.

          We have to give serious consideration to the issue of likelihood in the case of Cross on the 31st August whilst simultaneously looking at him as a witness and a suspect. What would be of immediate suspicion would be if a witness/suspect was found somewhere that he shouldn’t have been in the first place or that he was somewhere where he shouldn’t have been at the time that he was known to have been there. Neither apply to Cross.

          In this case we have a man leaving his house at approximately 3.30 (as he can’t give a specific time) then we have an average walk time from house to spot of 7 minutes (remembering that we have no idea of his walking speed that morning) Finally we have a discovery time of approximately 3.40. No problem there.

          The final question is a very simple one of course - what are the chances that a man leaves his house, giving himself just enough time to get to work at 4.00, takes a perfectly normal route (therefore most likely the one that he took every day) but on this day he bumps into a woman who he decides to murder and mutilate in the street.

          Then as he’s going about his task he hears someone approaching (it must have been close to impossible to sneak up on someone in those echoing, early morning streets) The killer, caught in the act, then has the opportunity to flee into the darkness but not him. Start your own stopwatches, he hears the man, he wipes his bloody knife, stands up and moves to the middle of the road whilst concealing the knife in his clothing. Stop your stopwatch. Not long, but long enough for the approaching man to have advanced 5 yards, 10 yards? Either way he’s getting closer. At some point Cross sees him but Cross can’t know at what point he saw Cross.

          Our killer then talks to the mystery man and his story is that he hadn’t approached the body yet; he’d merely looked from the middle of the road. How could he possibly have known that the other man hadn’t seen him move from the body to the middle of the road. He was hardly a mile away and he was advancing on him. By claiming that he was never next the body when he was would have been the most enormous of risks.

          Now he’s standing next to a man that he doesn’t know and that he has no influence over and he has a bloodied knife concealed in his clothing and he’d known from the outset that their next move would have been to find a Constable. Could he have put himself in a worse position?

          Either Charles Cross was suicidal or he was mind-bogglingly stupid or he was an innocent man walking to work who found a body. I’ll give you three guesses which one I go for?
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by FrankO View Post
            Hi George,

            I clearly didn’t (try to) adjust any evidence (I don’t think I ever do that or try to, as it’s simply impossible).

            Hi Frank,

            That's the part that I worded very badly, and for which my apology was proffered.

            Best regards, George
            It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

            All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

            ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

            Comment


            • #51
              From the inquest:

              “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.”


              Options for a guilty Cross:
              1. He heard Paul before he saw him.
              2. He heard Paul and saw him at pretty much the same time.

              If a) was the case that Cross could here him but not see him then I’d suggest that most people would assume that if they themselves couldn’t see the other person then it would have been unlikely that the other person couldn’t see them either. Therefore escape would be the sensible, easy option. The only option.

              If b) was the case the Cross would have had to stop what he was doing, wipe the knife and move to the middle of the road. This would have meant that he’d have been fully aware of the very real likelihood of the other man being able to see him move from the body to the middle of the road. So he have had to have said something like ‘I went over close to the body for a quick look,’ to cover himself, but he didn’t say that.

              We all know what really happened. Cross saw what he thought was a tarpaulin. He got to the middle of the road and saw that it was a body. Not knowing whether it was a dead body or just some drunk sleeping it off he hesitated for a very few seconds. I suspect that he was about to walk on to work when he heard Paul’s footsteps not too far away. He looked in that direction and after a couple of seconds the figure of Paul emerged from the dark so he waited until he arrived. They both walked on, found Mizen, told them that a Constable was required in Bucks Row. Either Mizen misheard what was said and thought they’d said that there was a Constable in Bucks Row or Mizen made it up as an a**e-covering exercise later on.

              There really is no mystery. How could Cross have been so confident that he would be able to talk his way past a Constable (with a man of unknown character standing next to him) and yet he didn’t think of saying what would have been the screamingly obvious defence for a guilty man - “just as I got to few yards from the body I saw the figure of a man stand up then run away along Bucks Row.” He didn’t because he didn’t need to. He’d done nothing wrong.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                I think that we’re all guilty of giving the Cross theory far too much air time. Apologies for the repetition btw.

                We have to give serious consideration to the issue of likelihood in the case of Cross on the 31st August whilst simultaneously looking at him as a witness and a suspect. What would be of immediate suspicion would be if a witness/suspect was found somewhere that he shouldn’t have been in the first place or that he was somewhere where he shouldn’t have been at the time that he was known to have been there. Neither apply to Cross.

                In this case we have a man leaving his house at approximately 3.30 (as he can’t give a specific time) then we have an average walk time from house to spot of 7 minutes (remembering that we have no idea of his walking speed that morning) Finally we have a discovery time of approximately 3.40. No problem there.

                The final question is a very simple one of course - what are the chances that a man leaves his house, giving himself just enough time to get to work at 4.00, takes a perfectly normal route (therefore most likely the one that he took every day) but on this day he bumps into a woman who he decides to murder and mutilate in the street.

                Then as he’s going about his task he hears someone approaching (it must have been close to impossible to sneak up on someone in those echoing, early morning streets) The killer, caught in the act, then has the opportunity to flee into the darkness but not him. Start your own stopwatches, he hears the man, he wipes his bloody knife, stands up and moves to the middle of the road whilst concealing the knife in his clothing. Stop your stopwatch. Not long, but long enough for the approaching man to have advanced 5 yards, 10 yards? Either way he’s getting closer. At some point Cross sees him but Cross can’t know at what point he saw Cross.

                Our killer then talks to the mystery man and his story is that he hadn’t approached the body yet; he’d merely looked from the middle of the road. How could he possibly have known that the other man hadn’t seen him move from the body to the middle of the road. He was hardly a mile away and he was advancing on him. By claiming that he was never next the body when he was would have been the most enormous of risks.

                Now he’s standing next to a man that he doesn’t know and that he has no influence over and he has a bloodied knife concealed in his clothing and he’d known from the outset that their next move would have been to find a Constable. Could he have put himself in a worse position?

                Either Charles Cross was suicidal or he was mind-bogglingly stupid or he was an innocent man walking to work who found a body. I’ll give you three guesses which one I go for?
                It's worse than that.

                "It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman."​" - Robert Paul, 1 Lloyds Weekly News, 2nd September 1888​

                If Cross was the killer, it would be essential to determine if Paul had seen anything. And when he approaches Paul, Paul is clearly afraid of Cross and trying to avoid him.

                The logical assumption is that Paul has seen too much and must be silenced immediately.

                Which is exactly what Cross doesn't do.

                Either Charles Cross was suicidal and mind-bogglingly stupid or he was an innocent man walking to work who found a body.
                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  It's worse than that.

                  "It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman."​" - Robert Paul, 1 Lloyds Weekly News, 2nd September 1888​

                  If Cross was the killer, it would be essential to determine if Paul had seen anything. And when he approaches Paul, Paul is clearly afraid of Cross and trying to avoid him.

                  The logical assumption is that Paul has seen too much and must be silenced immediately.

                  Which is exactly what Cross doesn't do.

                  Either Charles Cross was suicidal and mind-bogglingly stupid or he was an innocent man walking to work who found a body.
                  Good point Fiver. With Paul clearly trying to avoid talking to him a guilty man would have immediately wondered what he’d seen. Someone who had just killed and mutilated a woman wouldn’t have had any qualms about killing someone who might have caught him in the act.

                  There’s just nothing ‘guilty’ about Cross. All we get is ‘well he was there,’ which means nothing because he found the body. The ‘case’ against him doesn’t exist. It’s baffling that some talk about him as if he must have been the killer.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    Hi Frank,

                    That's the part that I worded very badly, and for which my apology was proffered.

                    Best regards, George
                    Thanks, George (although I still wouldn't have held it against you)!

                    Cheers,
                    Frank
                    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Newbie,

                      It is not a "Lechmerite" positing that the abdominal cuts were made first, it was Dr Llewellyn who examined the body 130 years ago. You are disputing the doctor who actually did the post mortem.

                      Cheers, George

                      Edit: Or are you posing a rhetorical question rather than disputing the opinion. Apologies if this is the case.
                      Hi GBinOz,

                      No, i am disputing the original opinion by Dr Llewellyn - as well did the coroner at the Polly Nichol's inquest:

                      Daily telegraph, day 3:
                      The coroner: "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards. This is a matter of some importance when we come to consider what possible motive there can be for all this ferocity. Robbery is out of the question; and there is nothing to suggest jealousy; there could not have been any quarrel, or it would have been heard. I suggest to you as a possibility that these two women may have been murdered by the same man with the same object, and that in the case of Nicholls the wretch was disturbed before he had accomplished his object, and having failed in the open street he tries again, within a week of his failure, in a more secluded place ..... "

                      Sometimes i speak rhetorically, but not in this case; and I don't think it really matters to anyone's position one way or the other which wound was the fatal one.

                      It just seems to make no sense to start out eviscerating the abdomen, even if you think her unconscious. It still permits the ability of the victim to scream. I think JtR would be very consistent in this aspect of his murders.

                      Regards
                      Last edited by Newbie; 06-09-2024, 09:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        I think that we’re all guilty of giving the Cross theory far too much air time. Apologies for the repetition btw.

                        We have to give serious consideration to the issue of likelihood in the case of Cross on the 31st August whilst simultaneously looking at him as a witness and a suspect. What would be of immediate suspicion would be if a witness/suspect was found somewhere that he shouldn’t have been in the first place or that he was somewhere where he shouldn’t have been at the time that he was known to have been there. Neither apply to Cross.

                        In this case we have a man leaving his house at approximately 3.30 (as he can’t give a specific time) then we have an average walk time from house to spot of 7 minutes (remembering that we have no idea of his walking speed that morning) Finally we have a discovery time of approximately 3.40. No problem there.

                        The final question is a very simple one of course - what are the chances that a man leaves his house, giving himself just enough time to get to work at 4.00, takes a perfectly normal route (therefore most likely the one that he took every day) but on this day he bumps into a woman who he decides to murder and mutilate in the street.

                        Then as he’s going about his task he hears someone approaching (it must have been close to impossible to sneak up on someone in those echoing, early morning streets) The killer, caught in the act, then has the opportunity to flee into the darkness but not him. Start your own stopwatches, he hears the man, he wipes his bloody knife, stands up and moves to the middle of the road whilst concealing the knife in his clothing. Stop your stopwatch. Not long, but long enough for the approaching man to have advanced 5 yards, 10 yards? Either way he’s getting closer. At some point Cross sees him but Cross can’t know at what point he saw Cross.

                        Our killer then talks to the mystery man and his story is that he hadn’t approached the body yet; he’d merely looked from the middle of the road. How could he possibly have known that the other man hadn’t seen him move from the body to the middle of the road. He was hardly a mile away and he was advancing on him. By claiming that he was never next the body when he was would have been the most enormous of risks.

                        Now he’s standing next to a man that he doesn’t know and that he has no influence over and he has a bloodied knife concealed in his clothing and he’d known from the outset that their next move would have been to find a Constable. Could he have put himself in a worse position?

                        Either Charles Cross was suicidal or he was mind-bogglingly stupid or he was an innocent man walking to work who found a body. I’ll give you three guesses which one I go for?

                        How passive you make Lech out to be, if he perpetuated the crime!
                        And why do you take that 'around 3:30 am' departure as gospel?

                        It is only a fact in the sense that Charles Lechmere attested to leaving home at this time in his inquest testimony.
                        To be cautious and conservative, we should consider the 3:30 am time as being no better than an alleged time of leaving home on his part, the morning of the murder.

                        It would be around the time one would head out for work, starting from 22 Doveton street, to make it on time to Pickford's at 4 am.
                        For this very reason, I disregard the 3:20 am time that Christer likes - pretty certain Lech was misunderstood by that one paper's reporter.

                        You are right, he's not stupid ... if guilty, why would he use any other time and incriminate himself?

                        An alternative to him faithfully leaving home at 3:30 am, and by dumb luck running into someone on his route, just begging to get her throat slashed, is this: he leaves home well earlier then 3:30 am, each morning, over the preceding weeks, scoping out the area on his eventual way to work, waiting patiently for a good opportunity. Did he encounter her at that spot on Buck's row, or did he bring her there? We'll never know what he did that morning up to 3:38 am (or was it 3:40 am?).

                        And why do we assume he couldn't be a little late to his job, having worked there for almost 20 years: did the Pickford entrance gates slam shut at 4 am?

                        Most importantly, what you consider a great strength in your argument - that he was around where he should be at that time, also undermines a key argument on your part: that if Lech was the killer, he would have fled when he heard Paul's footsteps coming up Buck's row.

                        If he realizes that he was not far off from the time he would be expected there - he had a damn good alibi and thus does not risk having to go by unexpected people up ahead, during his flight away from the approaching footsteps. For all we know, he could have brought Polly Nichols there with that in mind.

                        But it is only an alibi you can use once; and it is somewhat noteworthy that JtR never again used a long street to commit a murder.

                        As for the how did he know Paul didn't see him through the darkness before he saw Paul,
                        I think the reciprocity principle holds up here: if he didn't see Paul through the darkness, Paul didn't see him.

                        Wipe off the knife blade, put it in your pocket, pick up the body slightly to pull down the clothing (you're in a hurry, so you don't get it below the knees)
                        move to the center of the street and wait for Paul. How long does that take?

                        Then, subsequently, come up with a reason why you were standing there in the middle of the road all alone, next to Polly Nichol's recumbent figure.



                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          I think that we’re all guilty of giving the Cross theory far too much air time. Apologies for the repetition btw.

                          We have to give serious consideration to the issue of likelihood in the case of Cross on the 31st August whilst simultaneously looking at him as a witness and a suspect. What would be of immediate suspicion would be if a witness/suspect was found somewhere that he shouldn’t have been in the first place or that he was somewhere where he shouldn’t have been at the time that he was known to have been there. Neither apply to Cross.

                          In this case we have a man leaving his house at approximately 3.30 (as he can’t give a specific time) then we have an average walk time from house to spot of 7 minutes (remembering that we have no idea of his walking speed that morning) Finally we have a discovery time of approximately 3.40. No problem there.

                          The final question is a very simple one of course - what are the chances that a man leaves his house, giving himself just enough time to get to work at 4.00, takes a perfectly normal route (therefore most likely the one that he took every day) but on this day he bumps into a woman who he decides to murder and mutilate in the street.

                          Then as he’s going about his task he hears someone approaching (it must have been close to impossible to sneak up on someone in those echoing, early morning streets) The killer, caught in the act, then has the opportunity to flee into the darkness but not him. Start your own stopwatches, he hears the man, he wipes his bloody knife, stands up and moves to the middle of the road whilst concealing the knife in his clothing. Stop your stopwatch. Not long, but long enough for the approaching man to have advanced 5 yards, 10 yards? Either way he’s getting closer. At some point Cross sees him but Cross can’t know at what point he saw Cross.

                          Our killer then talks to the mystery man and his story is that he hadn’t approached the body yet; he’d merely looked from the middle of the road. How could he possibly have known that the other man hadn’t seen him move from the body to the middle of the road. He was hardly a mile away and he was advancing on him. By claiming that he was never next the body when he was would have been the most enormous of risks.

                          Now he’s standing next to a man that he doesn’t know and that he has no influence over and he has a bloodied knife concealed in his clothing and he’d known from the outset that their next move would have been to find a Constable. Could he have put himself in a worse position?

                          Either Charles Cross was suicidal or he was mind-bogglingly stupid or he was an innocent man walking to work who found a body. I’ll give you three guesses which one I go for?

                          How passive you make Lech out to be, if he perpetuated the crime!
                          And why do you take that 'around 3:30 am' departure as gospel?

                          It is only a fact in the sense that Charles Lechmere attested to leaving home at this time in his inquest testimony.
                          To be cautious and conservative, we should consider the 3:30 am time as being no better than an alleged time of leaving home on his part, the morning of the murder.

                          It would be around the time one would head out for work, starting from 22 Doveton street, to make it on time to Pickford's at 4 am.
                          For this very reason, I disregard the 3:20 am time that Christer likes - pretty certain Lech was misunderstood by that one paper's reporter.

                          You are right, he's not stupid ... if guilty, why would he use any other time and incriminate himself?

                          An alternative to him faithfully leaving home at 3:30 am, and by dumb luck running into someone on his route, just begging to get her throat slashed, is this: he leaves home well earlier then 3:30 am, each morning, over the preceding weeks, scoping out the area on his eventual way to work, waiting patiently for a good opportunity. Did he encounter her at that spot on Buck's row, or did he bring her there? We'll never know what he did that morning up to 3:38 am (or was it 3:40 am?).

                          And why do we assume he couldn't be a little late to his job, having worked there for almost 20 years: did the Pickford entrance gates slam shut at 4 am?

                          Most importantly, what you consider a great strength in your argument - that he was around where he should be at that time, also undermines a key argument on your part: that if Lech was the killer, he would have fled when he heard Paul's footsteps coming up Buck's row.

                          If he realizes that he was not far off from the time he would be expected there - he had a damn good alibi and thus does not risk having to go by unexpected people up ahead, during his flight away from the approaching footsteps. For all we know, he could have brought Polly Nichols there with that in mind.

                          But it is only an alibi you can use once; and is is somewhat noteworthy that JtR never again used a long street to commit a murder.

                          As for the how did he know Paul didn't see him through the darkness before he saw Paul,
                          I think the reciprocity principle holds up here: if he didn't see Paul through the darkness, Paul didn't see him.

                          Wipe off the knife blade, put it in your pocket, pick up the body slightly to pull down the clothing (you're in a hurry, so you don't get it below the knees)
                          move to the center of the street and wait for Paul. How long does that take?

                          Then, subsequently, come up with a reason why you were standing there in the middle of the road all alone, next to Polly Nichol's recumbent figure.




                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Daily Telegraph: day 1 of Polly Nichols inquest

                            Charles Cross:
                            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. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."

                            The average person, walking 3 mph, would take 30 seconds to go 40 yards.

                            So, moving half way across the street, you identify an unconscious woman at 3:40 am.
                            Then, hearing footsteps, you turn around and stand there gawking at the newcomer for some 30 seconds?

                            Most people would continue towards the woman, trying to get some information about the woman's condition (& gender for that matter),
                            before interacting with the newcomer.

                            However, if you know she's fatally wounded and perhaps dead, what's the point?

                            Comment


                            • #59


                              ​Why use Cross instead of Lechmere?

                              Lechmere put some thought into it, given the seriousness of the circumstances.


                              My mom was a hausfrau,
                              and when my dad got up before 5 am to transit to a job in another city, she felt that it was her duty to get up with him, cook breakfast and help him get ready.

                              Mrs. Lechmere (no, not Mrs. Cross), probably also felt this duty and got up with Charles each morning to help him go off to work. She would know when he had to leave for work, and when he was due to arrive at Pickfords.

                              So, if any suspicion is cast your way, why not avail yourself of your wife’s support, or perhaps a neighbor, who can vouch for your leaving at 3:30 am that morning?

                              In the case of the Pickford driver Charles Cross running over and killing the child ... if that was him, then the use of Cross is understandable. He adopted his stepfather’s surname (Victorian mores being what they were) who helped get him the job at Pickfords. He was known to administrators as Charles Cross and they helped him with legal representation.


                              But in testifying before the Polly Nichol’s inquest, it makes zero sense. His wife and kids went by the surname of Lechmere, and by involving his wife in the affair he would pique the interest of authorities on why he didn’t first present himself to authorities with his immediate family name. Pickfords would not be any help to him.


                              Imagine how being a suspect might scandalize wealthy relatives in Hertfordshire.



                              So, why use Cross instead of Lechmere?


                              Last edited by Newbie; 06-10-2024, 02:46 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                                … Unless the first cut was made in order to bleed out his victiim. And the second cut was made to complete the task
                                It was dark and he couldn't be sure if he got it right the first time

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X