Charles Cross?

[caz]

But wouldn't the police have kept an eye on anyone who had been near the Polly Nicholls murder after the subsequent ones? Checked to see if Cross and Lechmere had alibis? They had enough experience of other murders to know that whoever discovered the body could be the murderer.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

I assume you mean Paul and Lechmere (aka Cross)?

Well there is some evidence that the police were not complete idiots because they made an effort to track Robert Paul down after Chapman's murder, as a result of his press interview in relation to Nichols, and got him up in the middle of the night to question him. That wouldn't really make much sense, as the second man to come across Nichols, if they were not remotely concerned about Lechmere's role in the affair, as the first. They were both carmen, and the police would have wanted to explore the possibility of them being 'in it' together, in the wake of the murders of Smith and Tabram, which were suspected to have been the work of two or more men.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

But wouldn't the police have kept an eye on anyone who had been near the Polly Nicholls murder after the subsequent ones? Checked to see if Cross and Lechmere had alibis? They had enough experience of other murders to know that whoever discovered the body could be the murderer.

Best wishes
C4

You mean they would have put Lechmere and Paul under surveillance? No, I don´t think so personally. To me, the failure to find out that the carman was called Lechmere and not Cross tells a story of how they never took any interest in him. Or in Paul, initially, for that matter.
To the police, these would have been honest, hardworking carmen who in spite of this took the time to contact them - Lechmere even more so than Paul.

A case can be made for how the police renewed their interest in Paul when Chapman was killed very close to his workingplace. It would seem that this turned what had formerly been a slow search for him into a much more dedicated hunt, resulting in how they tracked him down and gave him a hard time.

But Lechmere seems to have attracted absolutely no interest from the police or the press.

[curious4]

But wouldn't the police have kept an eye on anyone who had been near the Polly Nicholls murder after the subsequent ones? Checked to see if Cross and Lechmere had alibis? They had enough experience of other murders to know that whoever discovered the body could be the murderer.

Best wishes
C4

[Fisherman]

'Lechmere didn't fit the picture the police, press and the public had of the killer'.

Polly was, as far as anyone knew at that time, the victim in a singleton murder, a brutal one it's true, but not the first of a series. So what picture could the police have had of the killer of Nichols when they began their investigations in the days following the finding of her body in Bucks Row?

Polly Nichols was the third victim - or so it was reasoned in the press and to some extent within the police. The Tabram killing was described as a very violent and brutal affair, distinguishing it from other killings, and Spratling said about Nichols “I have seen many terrible cases but never such a brutal affair as this”.
The speculations in the press were that a madman was on the loose, and that was fuelled by Spratlings words.
It applies that the police sought for a man much out of the ordinary, Rosella!

But even if this had not been so, and if Nichols had been the frist victim in the Whitechapel murder series, it would still be a fact that criminal anthropology governed much of the thinking in Britain of 1888. Any person who was able to do what was done to Nichols would not be an enlightened contemporary member of society - he would instead be an atavism, a result of how evolution sometimes is overruled by the odd person being born with a disposition of mind and physics that was a throwback to ancient times.

Such a man would be what they were looking for.

[Rosella]

'Lechmere didn't fit the picture the police, press and the public had of the killer'.

Polly was, as far as anyone knew at that time, the victim in a singleton murder, a brutal one it's true, but not the first of a series. So what picture could the police have had of the killer of Nichols when they began their investigations in the days following the finding of her body in Bucks Row?

[Fisherman]

Yes. Cross wasn't "found bending over the body"-- HE found Paul and then they both bent over the body.

Robert Paul was walking down Bucks Row at 3.45.

Charles Lechmere was standing still in the street.

Robert Paul therefore came upon Lechmere. It was not the other way around. It therefore applies that Paul found Lechmere.

Of course, Lechmere had noticed Pauls presence before his fellow carman arrived to the gate of Browns. But that does not mean that he "found" Paul. It means that he was aware that Paul was about to find HIM.

Whenever we have two persons within the same space, and one is moving while the other one is static, the latter can per definition not find the former.

... but that, of course, is something that is a fact outside the world of Ripperology. In Ripper country it is perhaps the other way around. Maybe I brought this errand up, and you are the one commenting on it?

[Fisherman]

It is hard to believe (as in the case of Hutchinson as well) that absolutely no one at Scotland Yard said "hey, do you think that guy that was seen bending over her body could have had anything to do with her murder?"

c.d.

As you have been told, there is no evidence telling us that Lechmere was seen leaning over the body of Nichols.
However, that matters little - any person who is found alone with a body at a remove in time that iplicates that he or she could have been the killer, should of course be closely scrutinized and examined.

In Lechmere´s case, the evidence tells us that this apparently never happened. If he HAD been scrutinized, the police would have estabished that his real name was Lechmere and not Cross, and that would have gotten into the files.

So why was he not examined? Because, I would say, he did not fit the picture the police, the press and the public had of the killer. These were times when criminal anthropology ruled the thinking, and Lechmere was more or less the antithesis of what would have been searched for.

It also applies that Lechmere contacted the police himself, not once but twice. That would also have had an impact on what the police thought about him.

I notice that you think that the documentary was so bad that it would make Patricia Cornwell blush. That is untrue - she never blushes. Your statement that there are flaws in the docu is to some extent correct - the leaning in over the body of Nichols on behalf of Lechmere is one such thing.

Edward and I did not produce the docu - Blink Films did. Therefore there are some flaws. Overall, though, I think that the documentary makes for a very fair representation of the Lechmere case.

I may add that more circumstantial evidence has surfaced since the docu was made, and this evidence is also very much in line with Lechmere being the killer.

You are normally a balanced poster, and I would be happy to discuss your misgivings with you on a more detialed level if you feel up to it.

[Pcdunn]

Hi Bridewell,

Exactly. As Paul stated he gave Cross a wide berth, didn't really pay any attention to him. The most interesting thing that makes me a bit skeptical about Cross being the killer is that he approached Paul from behind and tapped him on the shoulder. Why risk being seen close up by Paul if he was the killer? Paul wasn't particularly interested in Cross. I doubt he would have even remembered what he was wearing let alone be able to describe what Cross looked like.

Also in regards to Cross allegedly saying to Mizen he was wanted by Neil, that is off as well. Paul never mentioned that Cross had said this to Mizen.

Yes. Cross wasn't "found bending over the body"-- HE found Paul and then they both bent over the body.

[c.d.]

"I don't really believe Cross was responsible for the murders. Why kill on the way to work?"

It's certainly a much better excuse for being late than my alarm didn't go off.

c.d.

[c.d.]

It is hard to believe (as in the case of Hutchinson as well) that absolutely no one at Scotland Yard said "hey, do you think that guy that was seen bending over her body could have had anything to do with her murder?"

c.d.

[c.d.]

I watched the program last night. Wow was it bad. The reasoning and leaps of faith would have made Patricia Cornwell blush.

c.d.

[Natasha]

Indeed. The murder had to be committed on his route to work in order for him to be the person who found the body! Cross / Lechmere reacted by flagging down the next person he saw and drawing the situation to the attention of the first policeman he saw. That is exactly what I would expect any responsible citizen to do. I don't see what else he could have done. All the huff and puff has just about demonstrated that he could have committed the Nichols murder - which is a long way short of proof that he actually did it.

Hi Bridewell,

Exactly. As Paul stated he gave Cross a wide berth, didn't really pay any attention to him. The most interesting thing that makes me a bit skeptical about Cross being the killer is that he approached Paul from behind and tapped him on the shoulder. Why risk being seen close up by Paul if he was the killer? Paul wasn't particularly interested in Cross. I doubt he would have even remembered what he was wearing let alone be able to describe what Cross looked like.

Also in regards to Cross allegedly saying to Mizen he was wanted by Neil, that is off as well. Paul never mentioned that Cross had said this to Mizen.

[pinkmoon]

I hope the irony wasn't lost on anyone else.

Crossmere is the kind of 'everyman' suspect I could get on board with. It's just too bad that none of the so-called evidence stands up to scrutiny.

The problem isn't that the evidence dosnt stand up its that there is no evidence in the first place it's a theory but it's a theory that's much better than some of the other ones we have had proposed over the years.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wasn't gacy under police surveillance for quite a period of time this would have stopped him from killing but because of this you couldn't say he stopped voluntary.

He didnt stop voluntarily, the police executed a drugs warrant and found all the bodies buried under the floorboards

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

If Charles Lechmere disturbed the killer, then he must have made a swift exit on hearing Lechmere's footsteps entering Bucks Row. So the difference in time between the killer being at the body and Lechmere is the time it took Lechmere to walk from the top of Buck's Row to the stable yard. How long would that have taken? If that stretches the time it took the blood to congeal to unreasonable limits, then Lechmere is probably your man. If not, the unknown killer is also 'bang in the middle of the time frame'.