Polly's Skirts - Lechmere The Killer.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

why respond if you only read the first sentence? I'm fine with being ignored.

I asked the simple question of what advantage was there in using Cross over Lechmere?

The question was not one of Lechmere trying to fool authorities about his identity.

Since 2012?, the argument by Christer and a few others has been that Lechmere was trying to conceal his identity from his wife and neighbors
in newspaper accounts. He most certainly didn't present himself to his neighbors on Doveton street as Charles Cross: his wife, children and patrilineal descendents all go by Lechmere. And his wife had the strange habit of signing an 'X' on her marriage certificate and other documents. If you wish to give me an example of males who make a choose of using a different name in our enlightened age from that of his children, please enlighten me. In Victorian England, I suspect that it would be considered weird.

So the question is not whether using Cross is a sign of guilt or innocence;
the question is, between Lechmere or Cross, why did he choose Cross, feeling that it better served him during the proceedings?

It is not a whimsical thing.

And yes, he also had the option of telling authorities that his name is Lechmere, but that he was known administratively at Pickfords as Cross.
I don't know if the latter part was true after more than 20 years of service,
but there is always the possibility that he never bothered to inform Pickford administrators.

I didn't just read the first sentence. I stand by what I said. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest a guilty Lechmere.

[Newbie]

But Cross could so easily be traced back to Lechmere. It becomes a non point.

Hi John,

why respond if you only read the first sentence? I'm fine with being ignored.

I asked the simple question of what advantage was there in using Cross over Lechmere?

The question was not one of Lechmere trying to fool authorities about his identity.

Since 2012?, the argument by Christer and a few others has been that Lechmere was trying to conceal his identity from his wife and neighbors
in newspaper accounts. He most certainly didn't present himself to his neighbors on Doveton street as Charles Cross: his wife, children and patrilineal descendents all go by Lechmere. And his wife had the strange habit of signing an 'X' on her marriage certificate and other documents, so her literacy is gravely in question. If you wish to give me an example of males who made a choose between using a different name in our enlightened age from that of his children, please enlighten me. In Victorian England, I suspect that it would be considered weird and in great contradiction to morays.

So the question is not whether using Cross is a sign of guilt or innocence;
the question is, between Lechmere or Cross, why did he choose Cross, feeling that it better served him during the proceedings?

It is not a whimsical thing.

And yes, he also had the option of telling authorities that his name is Lechmere, but that he was known administratively at Pickfords as Cross.
I don't know if the latter part was true after more than 20 years of service,
but there is always the possibility that he never bothered to inform Pickford administrators.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

Just a couple of comments. If Lech decided to pickup a woman in Whitechapel Road and they went to a quiet place in Buck's Row, he would have been quoting an approximate time for leaving home that would sound reasonable - no relationship to whatever time he actually left home. Wouldn't his wife have noticed what time he left I hear you ask. If she was anything like my ex-wife - NO!.

Secondly, I would beg your indulgence to my altering your scenario slightly:
He strangles Polly, and presuming she is dead proceeds to start the mutilation.
Start your own stopwatches. He hears the man, he wipes his bloody knife, stands up and starts to move off. As he does, Polly stirs. He ponders whether she could identify him or raise an alarm. He decides not to take the risk, retrieves his knife and cuts her throat. Not knowing how close the man now is, he pulls the clothing down to conceal the abdominal injuries and moves to the middle of the road whilst concealing the knife in his clothing. Stop your stopwatch. This is consistent with the medical opinion of Llewellyn. He moves towards the man thinking that if the man has seen something he will run away. The man responds by accepting the invitation to look at the woman lying in the street, and the bluff begins.

I don't have a preferred suspect so I am just considering possibilities. However, I am still mystified how Paul could have knelt to see if she was breathing and touched her chest without noticing the gaping wound in her throat.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

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

What wealthy relatives back in Herefordshire? His maternal grandfather was a butler who had been dead for 40 years. His paternal grandfather was a farmer who'd been dead for almost 50 years. His father was a bankrupt bootmaker who deserted the family when Charles Allen was a small child and didn't live in Herefordshire anymore. All of his father's brothers and sisters were dead.

Maybe you mean his mother's sisters, the widow of a weaver and the widow of a butcher? They were alive and in Herefordshire, but hardly what I would call wealthy.

Not to mention that using the surname Cross would have no effect one way or the other on whether the police suspected him.

[Fiver]

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.

If Lechmere was the killer and saw Paul at the same time as Paul saw Lechmere, then Lechmere would have been caught red-handed mutilating the body. There would be no time for wiping off a knife or moving into the middle of the street.

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?

You both ignore crucial steps and add unnecessary ones. There is no evidence that the Ripper tried to pull down Nichols skirts. The Ripper made no attempt to hide Nichols wounds. Doing it would require:

* Trying to lift the body with one arm, which considering the blood flow probably means that arm and sleeve become saturated in blood.
* Now that your arm is coated in slippery blood, try not to lose your grip on the body.
* Using your other hand, pull down the skirts.
* Do all this without looking at the body, since you have to keep your eyes on the approaching carman.

Actions that the Ripper would need to do if he wasn't smart enough to just sip off into the darkness:

* Decide what you're going to wipe the knife blade off on. Wiping it on your own clothes is incredibly stupid. The Ripper doesn't appear to have wiped his blade on Nichols clothing. Which leaves a pocket handkerchief as the most likely choice.
* Pull the handkerchief out of your pocket.
* Wipe off the knife blade.
* Wipe off your hands.
* Return the handkerchief to your pocket.
* Conceal the knife on your person.
* Stand up.
* Walk three or four yards into the middle of the street.
* Turn your back on the approaching person.

And you have to do all of this without being seen or heard, without knowing if you still have blood on your hands or clothing.

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.

Paul saw Lechmere standing in the middle of the street, not "next to Polly Nichol's recumbent figure".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike,

My stance is the same as yours, but, according to some Lechmerians, Lechmere only cut the throat (twice) after mutilating the abdomen and I was following that line of thought. My view is that in the time he's supposed to have done all the preparing and then the moving away from the body, he could have been close to the corner of the board school by the time Paul would have been some 30-40 yards away from where Lechmere first saw him.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I hadn’t taken that into consideration. I see what you mean.

[FrankO]

“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?”

Pickfords policy was, if you were late you were replaced with another driver and would lose a day's pay. This was Victorian England after all. I wouldn't be surprised if Pickford workers had to clock in. I know I did in my first job.

I wouldn't be surprised either, Dusty.

“… move to the center of the street and wait for Paul.”

Without Paul seeing him? How would that work?

And without hearing him. We have to remember that, according to the Lechmerians, Paul was actively listening for sounds ahead of him (that's the very reason why they think it's suspicious why he didn't hear Lechmere walking ahead of him). Yet, they've never explained why he wouldn't have listened & heard Lechmere first moving around the body and then away to take up his position in the middle of the street.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

If he was guilty then surely Nichols would have been dead by the time that he first heard Paul approaching? So all that he needed to do was wipe the knife? However long he still had a man approaching him of course. I think that he’d have fled as soon as he heard him approach. I think that the only reason that he might have allowed him to arrive was if he’d intended to kill him.

Hi Mike,

My stance is the same as yours, but, according to some Lechmerians, Lechmere only cut the throat (twice) after mutilating the abdomen and I was following that line of thought. My view is that in the time he's supposed to have done all the preparing and then the moving away from the body, he could have been close to the corner of the board school by the time Paul would have been some 30-40 yards away from where Lechmere first saw him.

Cheers,
Frank

[drstrange169]

“It just seems to make no sense to start out eviscerating the abdomen, even if you think her unconscious.”

Did anyone tell Mrs Tabram’s murderer this?


“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?”

Pickfords policy was, if you were late you were replaced with another driver and would lose a day's pay. This was Victorian England after all. I wouldn't be surprised if Pickford workers had to clock in. I know I did in my first job.


“… it is somewhat noteworthy that JtR never again used a long street to commit a murder.”

Without knowing who the ripper was and all the murders committed by that hand, how can you know that?


“… pick up the body …”

Causing blood to spread where Paul would tread in it? What would the point of covering her up if there was blood to be seen everywhere?



“… move to the center of the street and wait for Paul.”

Without Paul seeing him? How would that work?


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

But as you have already pointed out, Paul said, “I hurrying along”, what relevance is an average walking speed to Paul’s self confessed hurried pace?



“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.”

Would they?

Again, as you have already pointed out, according to Paul,
“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.”
Therefore the information available to us suggests Cross did the sensible thing, that is, what most people, there at that time, in that area would do, take a cautious approach in an area known to be dangerous.


“Why use Cross instead of Lechmere?”

Once more, you answer your own question,
“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.”


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

Since he was never a police suspect, that issue was never relevant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Small point, perhaps, but I think we would be looking more likely at 25 to 30 yards, Mike. He would first hear Paul, then assess the situation (where does he come from, how far away is he, could I still get away, what to do if I'm going to stay put?), then cut the throat twice, cover the throat wound, cover the abdomen, put the knife away and move away from the body and hopefully have a few seconds left before Paul will be able to see him or hear him. Now, I'm not saying that the assassing would have taken more than a few seconds, but, the whole 'preparing' himself & the body and move away from it would have taken 15 rather than 10 seconds if you ask me. Even 10 seconds would get Paul to cover at least 15 yards.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

If he was guilty then surely Nichols would have been dead by the time that he first heard Paul approaching? So all that he needed to do was wipe the knife? However long he still had a man approaching him of course. I think that he’d have fled as soon as he heard him approach. I think that the only reason that he might have allowed him to arrive was if he’d intended to kill him.

[Geddy2112]

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?

Because that is all we have, the vast majority of the newspaper reports say 'about 3:30.' Christer always misses out the 'about' to invent his time gap.

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?).

The simple issue with him leaving earlier than about 3:30am is that would give him even more time to flee the scene. Remember the inquest stated she had been 'found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m' If you take Christer's view she was still 'bleeding and breathing' so TOD can't have been more than 10 mins prior to that. It all depends on if you believe Christer or not. I personaly do not.

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?

Why do we assume he worked for Pickfords. I've asked the question numerous times and it appears the only time it is mentioned that he does if from his Testimony. The odd thing here is Team Lechmere believe this part of his testimony but not the part about the propping up, the talking with Mizen etc etc. Cherry picking the bits that suit.

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?

Again team Lechmere do not consider this is what happened, they claim (as explained here) the abdominal wounds came first, then the throat slashing which makes no sense to me if Lechmere was the killer and disturbed. Again according to Christer, the goal in the murder is to plunder the abdomen. So why, if disturbed would he spend vital 'escape/thinking to cover his butt time' to pull the skirts down and cut her throat twice? That 40 yards has dramatically shrunk now and Paul will be in visibility for sure now and be able to see Lechmere over the body, which of course he did not. Plus you then have all the things you suggest to happen to perform as well.

[B]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.

Apparently that is not what happened. I believe it was in CSI Whitechapel, the illustration shows that Lechmere noticed the bundle, approached it slightly then noticed it was a woman. At this time he heard Paul approaching and did NOT stand there gawking but actually approached Paul and even though Paul tried to evade him he tapped him on the shoulder to gain his attention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

So people just did Newbie. Loads have examples have been found of this happening. The question that we should ask is - did the use of the name Cross, in any way, give him an advantage in avoiding suspicion of being accused of murder? The answer is an overwhelming ‘no.’ So there was nothing suspicious about it. If he’d have given a false address and called himself Fred Smith then that would have been suspicious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?).

I’ve said in previous posts that Cross could have lied and left the house much earlier but that would add more questions. Prostitutes were hardly difficult to find so why did it take him until close to 3.40? If he found one earlier and elsewhere why take her to Bucks Row? If he just ‘bumped’ into Polly earlier, at say 3.25 or 3.30 why was he still in situ when the murder and mutilations would have taken no more than 2 minutes?

We can’t know what time Cross left the house. The issue comes when Christer tries to claim that we should assume that we do know and that we do know what time Paul arrived so that a gap can be manufactured.

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?

We see that Paul was concerned about being late for work. The point that I made was because times were different than today. A boss could just sack someone on the spot with no ‘unfair dismissal’ tribunal to follow. Losing a job then would have been a big deal so I’d merely suggest that employees would have been wary of not giving their employers any excuse.

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 he wouldn’t have had an innocent reason for having a bloodied knife. Or perhaps he inadvertently got some blood on him.

What would have happened if Paul had started shouting “murder!” at the top of his voice to attract a Constable? Then one arrives and finds the victim dead followed by a search of the two men.

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.

The point is that he couldn’t have known that for anything like certain.

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?

Not long. It still doesn’t alter the fact that he’s in such a precarious position. He has an unknown man advancing on him, he hears him then starts….clean the knife etc….anyone in that position would have felt exposed. The risk of waiting for the unknown man is massively higher than just fleeing.

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.

Nothing that Cross did that morning speaks of guilt or even of being suspicious. He would only have remained at the scene if he felt that he’d been pretty much caught in the act and how could that have happened in an empty, echoing street? And if he’d felt that he’d been seen why would he tell Paul that he hadn’t been near the body yet?

[Geddy2112]

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

And of course AT THE TIME of the discovery Cross did not know what was written in the report - obviously. So he could not know, or should not assume Paul was a tad scared of being in Bucks Row. I still say there is more leaning towards a guilty Paul than there is a guilty Cross. Why did Paul walk Bucks Row six times a week if he know it was dangerous? Was he trying to cover his own backsides. PC Neil never mentioned it was a crime ridden street for example.

[FrankO]

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?

Of course, he could be a little late, Newbie, but the thing is that, whereas he's quoted to have said he left home "about 3.30", he's also quoted to have said he arrived "at 4 o'clock" and that this 4 o'clock would have been something that was easily checkable by the police.

Regards,
Frank