What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Someone had to discover the body, and it was along Cross's route to work.



Innuendo and a priori fallacy. It only has meaning if we assume Cross was the killer.



PCs all wore the same style boots. What were carmen wearing that season? Innuendo and argument from ignorance.



Soft-soled shoes? Again, argument from ignorance.



Llewellyn didn't appear to think so. Speculation.



"Somewhat" is an incredibly vague term. How did Neil normally define it? Argument from ignorance.



According to Cross's testimony as reported in The Daily Telegraph, it was Paul who didn't want to prop up the body. Paul is not reported to have contradicted him at the inquest and Paul doesn't mention the incident in Lloyd's Weekly, so where are you getting that it was Cross that refused to prop her up? Maybe Paul was the killer?



Cross testified on Monday, a work day. Were laborers typically given the whole day off in order to appear at an inquest? They would be expected to return to work afterwards today, unless they took personal vacation time.



Except, you don't know which route or routes Cross typically took. We know he took the Buck's Row route on the morning of Nichols' murder. Why do you think he would necessarily take any other route?



Hardly. He demonstrably went to work around the time when Nichols was killed. Why would you expect him to change that schedule just to avoid suspicion of the other murders, which he had no way of knowing would be committed? Would his boss have changed his schedule so he would look less guilty to you over 100 years later?



No, it means that Stride and Eddowes were killed on Saturday. And again, you haven't shown that Cross ever deviated from his route through Buck's Row.



Er, three of the Whitechapel murders were south of the line between the first two murders. They could scarcely have been otherwise and remained in Whitechapel. Coincidence?



Maybe Cross's mother did it? Pretty speculative.




So which is most important, the mother or the pubs? Seems like you got it covered either way. Maybe he had a mistress in the area as well. You can add that one to your list with my compliments.



He wanted to f*ck his mother? That cinches it.



Were the other authorities all police? His step-father had been a cop, maybe he was known to the police by that name? What was the other case where he used Cross, and how close to 1888 had it been? We need some context here.



Yup, most murderers handle dead carcasses for a living. That's a fact.




Hmmm. He was also in London when the Queen died. Coincidence?



So now Paul is an accomplice? Cross raised the alarm by drawing Paul's attention to the body and agreeing to seek out a policeman.



When did Neil tell him that he had found the body? I think I missed that.



Hardly, Paul was taking credit for Cross's actions and got his name in the paper for it. Wouldn't you want to set the record straight?



See Number 21.



Neil didn't see the blood until he turned on his lamp. Maybe it was dark?



So you're arguing that Smith & Tabram belong with the canonical cases? Even so, I'm not seeing the point here. Maybe Cross avoided the Old Montague route because two people had recently been killed along that way? Sounds pretty sensible to me.

I was in Washington DC once back in the late 1990s or early 2000s (I've been there twice, and I don't remember which visit it was when this incident occurred) and was staying in a hotel in Crystal City (across the Potomac from DC). I had stayed at a bar in DC until late at night, and when I got off the subway in Crystal City, I walked the few blocks back to the hotel. The next morning, I learned that I had missed a murder along that same exact route by about 15 minutes (just after I had passed by). You can bet that I took a different route back to the hotel the next few days that I was staying there. Sorry for the digression.



Maybe not having a father figure as a child was a part of his plot to kill Nichols. Or maybe he had no say in the matter.



The same newspaper article (we don't have the inquest report), failed to list an address for Monk. Identifying the witnesses is standard procedure at an inquest, including address or place of employment. Either the coroner was slipshod, or more likely, the paper simply failed to report the address of two witnesses.

...deleted several intimations that Cross was responsible for nearly all murders in London during his lifetime...
Edited to add: That's a joke by the way. He only killed the torso.



When did Cross say that? According to his inquest testimony, Cross did all of the talking. Paul doesn't contradict him at the inquest. The only time he contradicts Cross on this is when he claimed Cross's role in the affair when he made his statements to Lloyd's.

And what other suspect compares? Let me just say that I have not taken the time to read the respective answers you give - I know full well that none of the points per se is decisive. What one should ask oneself is instead: Can all of these things point to somebody without that somebody being a very viable suspect?

[Fisherman]

Er, Neil's own testimony was that he had passed through Buck's Row less than 20 minutes before Cross discovered the body. Why couldn't he have killed her then?

Because she was cut much later. And it was thirty minutes, not "less than 20".
Nichols could of course not still be bleeding thirtyfive minutes after Neil passed. And for that matter, she would not have been bleeding twentyfive minutes after that stage either.

[Fisherman]

There seems to be a little confusion as to the kind of proceeding an inquest was (and still is).
An inquest is a Civil Law hearing which is overseen by a Coroner, who is a Government-appointed official (normally a Barrister or Solicitor); it may call a jury if that is deemed necessary, but does not have to.
An Inquest is not a criminal trial, oaths are not administered, witnesses are under no obligation to attend, the rules of criminal evidence do not apply; it is purely a fact-finding hearing, meant to establish the identity of the body and if possible the cause of death. That is all.
In the case of a decision of unlawful killing, it is then up to the Police to investigate, put together a case if they can, and take that case to Court, which is where actual formal legal protocols come into play.

Does is mean was? Did the exact same rules apply in 1888, do you know that? It would be useful to establish.

[Mirandola]

Pointless comment; 'Is' of course means 'was' - my initial comment 'was (and still is)' was meant to apply throughout. The Coroners Act of 1887 in fact removed a whole swag of fiscal responsibilities from the Coroner's remit and left him, as stated, as the overseer of a Civil process designed to establish identity, consider any statements that were offered, and decide cause of death. Criminal Law only comes/came into play if the Police decide/d to pursue the case in Court. Strict Legal protocols of evidence are/were not in place; statements could even be presented in written form, to be read into the record by the Coroner.
While we're on this subject, it's worth noting how many people at these Inquests in 1888 were known by two or even more names. Birth Certificates and Official Identification for such things as Bank Loans and Company Registrations required an official name, which was also required in case of arrest; otherwise, you could call yourself what you wanted. In English Law, you still can.

Your own obsession with Cross as Ripper seems to lead you astray in interpreting other peoples' statements. I actually said that Neil had as much propinquity as Cross; I have never suggested a 'suspect' for 'the Ripper' and don't imagine I ever will, as my interests in the case - which I've stated before on these boards - have nothing to do with the killer's identity; I can't think of any way this could be established that would satisfy everybody, and I can't see that it matters.

Incidentally, the points you're not sure what I'm after about are that Neil saw her throat was cut only after close examination with the aid of his lantern (something Paul and Cross didn't have), that blood was not flowing but oozing, and that the clothing was disarranged as in the later killings.

Undoubtedly we cannot be 100% certain that the Nichols murder was first (or second) in the series; there is practically nothing we actually can be 100% certain of respecting these murders. The Police considered other possibilities at the time but gradually accepted that the circumstances were so distinctive that there was a definite series with what we would now term a distinctive signature. They were there. All we have are Media reports.

And 120 years of speculation.

These latter two, by the way, are where my own interests, as a former Lecturer in Criminology and Media Studies, lie.

[Fisherman]

Mirandola: Pointless comment; 'Is' of course means 'was' - my initial comment 'was (and still is)' was meant to apply throughout.

Pointless? You did not establish at what remove(s) in time the rules you mentioned did apply, and now that you do, it makes very much of a point to me.

The Coroners Act of 1887 in fact removed a whole swag of fiscal responsibilities from the Coroner's remit and left him, as stated, as the overseer of a Civil process designed to establish identity, consider any statements that were offered, and decide cause of death. Criminal Law only comes/came into play if the Police decide/d to pursue the case in Court. Strict Legal protocols of evidence are/were not in place; statements could even be presented in written form, to be read into the record by the Coroner.
While we're on this subject, it's worth noting how many people at these Inquests in 1888 were known by two or even more names. Birth Certificates and Official Identification for such things as Bank Loans and Company Registrations required an official name, which was also required in case of arrest; otherwise, you could call yourself what you wanted. In English Law, you still can.

Thanks for this; most useful. The point of interest here is WHY the carman chose to call himself Cross, since we have 100+ different contacts with the authoritites established where he called himslef Lechmere. And no other example where he called himself Cross.
From an investigative point of view, that carries weight, no matter if it is legal or not.

Your own obsession with Cross as Ripper seems to lead you astray in interpreting other peoples' statements.

Seems? I don´t think so.

I actually said that Neil had as much propinquity as Cross; I have never suggested a 'suspect' for 'the Ripper' and don't imagine I ever will, as my interests in the case - which I've stated before on these boards - have nothing to do with the killer's identity; I can't think of any way this could be established that would satisfy everybody, and I can't see that it matters.

That´s all very fine. But maybe it matters to other people, who have other interests than you have? And who have the same right to join these public boards as you have?
I know that Neil had as much propinquity as Lechmere had, but to me, it is utterly useless to point that out in a context where a comparison is made as to the viability of being the killer. And that was exactly what you did - you pointed to how the two men are equal in this context.
i
Ironically, I have spent a good number of posts making the exact same point - proximity to a murder victim is not suspicious per se - but presented together with addef material that DOES point to possible guilt, it is nevertheless a factor that no prosecutor would leave out.

You write that I am obsessed with Lechmere, and you seemto think that you would have some sort of reason to step in and tell me that he cannot be conviccted legally in retrospect on the existing evidence. That´s all very repsonsible and all that, but the fact of the matter is that I am very much aware that there is no conclusive case. What there is, is circumstantial evidence and every persons right to make an assessment of how much value shuld be ascribed to it. Plus there is the addition of what James Scobie said in the documentary, making me feel reassured that I am not being a complete idiot when it comes to the legal implications.

Incidentally, the points you're not sure what I'm after about are that Neil saw her throat was cut only after close examination with the aid of his lantern (something Paul and Cross didn't have), that blood was not flowing but oozing, and that the clothing was disarranged as in the later killings.

Neil says "running" on other occasions, the early reports speak of the blood having flowed profusely, and if you google a combination of the two words "oozed" and "profusely", you will get a number of hits. My own contetnion is that the blood may have flowed rather much as Neil saw N ichols, but that there was no underlying pressure making it run. It ran on account of gravity, and so I think that we may be dealing with an expression telling us that the blood welled out.
Certainly, if it was merely trickling very slowly, it becomes odd that Mizen said that the blood was "still running" when he saw the body, a couple of minutes after Neil.

Undoubtedly we cannot be 100% certain that the Nichols murder was first (or second) in the series; there is practically nothing we actually can be 100% certain of respecting these murders.

Yes, exactly. That was why I pointed it out. Many people who say that I am far too sure about things make these kinds of assumptions themselves with no stable ground to stand on.

The Police considered other possibilities at the time but gradually accepted that the circumstances were so distinctive that there was a definite series with what we would now term a distinctive signature. They were there. All we have are Media reports.

Not really, no. There is more to go on than so. And there are examples of serial killers who used very different methods, changing inbetween victims. I have good reason to believe that Lechmere killed before and after the so called Ripper series, but I am not going to divulge exactly how that reason looks as of now. So either you trust me or you say that I am just so obsessed with the carman that I am ready to pin every murder in the Western hemisphere on him.
It really does not matter all that much to me how you choose.

And 120 years of speculation.

Which should take us closer to the truth, yes. That´s what work normally does. And I am an optimist.

These latter two, by the way, are where my own interests, as a former Lecturer in Criminology and Media Studies, lie.

As long as you accept that other have differing interests and that they may well be both better informed and more insightful than you, that is all dandy. I have just finished reading Mei Trows book on the torso murders, and although he has written books on and studied crimninology and is an expert on the case, I have found that he is woefully factually wrong in many instances. That does not make me "the best researcher" - but it tells me to be wary of claims made by people.
That is not to offend you in any respect - I welcome experience nearly as much as I welcome insight.

[David Orsam]

There seems to be a little confusion as to the kind of proceeding an inquest was (and still is).
An inquest is a Civil Law hearing which is overseen by a Coroner, who is a Government-appointed official (normally a Barrister or Solicitor); it may call a jury if that is deemed necessary, but does not have to.
An Inquest is not a criminal trial, oaths are not administered, witnesses are under no obligation to attend, the rules of criminal evidence do not apply; it is purely a fact-finding hearing, meant to establish the identity of the body and if possible the cause of death. That is all.
In the case of a decision of unlawful killing, it is then up to the Police to investigate, put together a case if they can, and take that case to Court, which is where actual formal legal protocols come into play.

Most of this is not correct, as can be seen from the Coroners Act, 1887.

1. A jury was mandatory: "Where a coroner is informed that the dead body of a person is lying within his jurisdiction, and there is reasonable cause to suspect that such person has died either a violent or unnatural death....the coroner...shall, as soon as practicable...issue his warrant for summoning not less than twelve nor more than twenty-three good and lawful men to appear before him at a specified time and place, there to inquire as jurors touching the death of such persons as aforesaid" AND "If then it appears to be necessary to hold an inquest, the coroner should proceed forthwith to issue his warrant to summon a jury" (s.3(1)).

2.Oaths were administered: "...the coroner shall examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine." (s.4(1)) AND "The witnesses must be examined on oath." (s.4(1)) - although they could affirm by making "a solemn promise or declaration".

3. Witnesses were under an obligation to attend: "It is the duty of all persons who are acquainted with the circumstances attending the subject of the coroner's inquiry to appear before the inquest as witnesses...The coroner, being guided by the information he has received, usually sends a message to those witnesses whom he thinks material. Should they neglect or refuse to attend, the coroner, as incident to his office of judge of a court of record, has authority to issue a summons to compel their attendance...". (s.4(1)).

4. It was not merely a fact finding hearing meant to establish the identity of the body and the cause of death: "After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict...setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter, the person or persons if any, whom the jury finds to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories before the fact to such murder." (s.4(3) - underlining added).

4A. Where the jury charged a person with murder or manslaughter the coroner had the power issue a warrant for arresting or detaining such person (s.5(1)). He could also commit to trial.

5. Also note: "The general rules of evidence are applicable alike to civil and criminal proceedings" (S4(1)). There was more flexibility, however, at an inquest in respect of hearsay statements.

6. And a coroner was an officer of the Crown and judge of a court of record, not a government appointed official. The appointment was made by the relevant local authority.

[Fisherman]

Many thanks to you too, David.

That´s two times I have thanked people now - and for entirely different sets of rules.

[Fisherman]

I find this passage enlightening to an often discussed errand, that of whether Lechmere would have been summoned to the inquest:

"The coroner, being guided by the information he has received, usually sends a message to those witnesses whom he thinks material."

I underlined the material part: the coroner did apparently not send a message to all the people who ended up at an inquest.

And:

"It is the duty of all persons who are acquainted with the circumstances attending the subject of the coroner's inquiry to appear before the inquest as witnesses..."

So, having been called by the coroner or not, it seems Lechmere was dutybound to appear. Or is it simply saying that if you were at the inquest, you could not refuse to testify?

And what about the oath imposed upon the witnesses? Did it entail a duty to speak under your correct name, or were you allowed to testify as Donald Duck, should you feel like it?

[David Orsam]

I find this passage enlightening to an often discussed errand, that of whether Lechmere would have been summoned to the inquest:

"The coroner, being guided by the information he has received, usually sends a message to those witnesses whom he thinks material."

I underlined the material part: the coroner did apparently not send a message to all the people who ended up at an inquest.

And:

"It is the duty of all persons who are acquainted with the circumstances attending the subject of the coroner's inquiry to appear before the inquest as witnesses..."

So, having been called by the coroner or not, it seems Lechmere was dutybound to appear. Or is it simply saying that if you were at the inquest, you could not refuse to testify?

From the Act:

"...if a witness refuses to give evidence when sworn, or otherwise misconducts himself in court, the coroner has power to commit him for contempt."

[David Orsam]

And what about the oath imposed upon the witnesses? Did it entail a duty to speak under your correct name, or were you allowed to testify as Donald Duck, should you feel like it?

The oath is to tell the truth.

[David Orsam]

6. And a coroner was an officer of the Crown and judge of a court of record, not a government appointed official. The appointment was made by the relevant local authority.

By way of clarification, prior to the creation of the London County Council in 1889, the process appears to have been slightly different for the Metropolitan area of London and Middlesex. According to the Times, in respect of the appointment of Dr George Danford Thomas as coroner:

"Dr Hardwicke, when Coroner for Central Middlesex, invited him to act as his deputy, and on Dr Hardwicke's death, in 1881, Dr Thomas won a contested election for the Coronership, the appointment of which was at that time in the hands of the freeholders." (Times, 8 August 1910).

[Fisherman]

The oath is to tell the truth.

Hm. I only asked because Mirandola wrote:

While we're on this subject, it's worth noting how many people at these Inquests in 1888 were known by two or even more names. Birth Certificates and Official Identification for such things as Bank Loans and Company Registrations required an official name, which was also required in case of arrest; otherwise, you could call yourself what you wanted. In English Law, you still can.

I have been told the same thing - justaboutish - by Monty before. While I was told by Andy Griffiths that Lechmere would have been required to state his real name as he was under oath.

To me, it would seem counterproductive for a legal system to allow people to use aliases and hide their true names when witnessing under oath, but then again, I am sometimes left dumbfounded by many legal finesses...

[David Orsam]

Hm. I only asked because Mirandola wrote:

While we're on this subject, it's worth noting how many people at these Inquests in 1888 were known by two or even more names. Birth Certificates and Official Identification for such things as Bank Loans and Company Registrations required an official name, which was also required in case of arrest; otherwise, you could call yourself what you wanted. In English Law, you still can.

I have been told the same thing - justaboutish - by Monty before. While I was told by Andy Griffiths that Lechmere would have been required to state his real name as he was under oath.

To me, it would seem counterproductive for a legal system to allow people to use aliases and hide their true names when witnessing under oath, but then again, I am sometimes left dumbfounded by many legal finesses...

Without wishing to get sucked into the Lechmere/Cross debate, the plain fact, as has been discussed on here many times, is that some people in the 19th century, and beyond, legitimately had more than one name.

[John G]

By way of clarification, prior to the creation of the London County Council in 1889, the process appears to have been slightly different for the Metropolitan area of London and Middlesex. According to the Times, in respect of the appointment of Dr George Danford Thomas as coroner:

"Dr Hardwicke, when Coroner for Central Middlesex, invited him to act as his deputy, and on Dr Hardwicke's death, in 1881, Dr Thomas won a contested election for the Coronership, the appointment of which was at that time in the hands of the freeholders." (Times, 8 August 1910).

Hi David,

I believe County Coroners in England were elected by freeholders until 1888, but then, by virtue of the Local Government Act 1888, the appointment was given to the county council, who could appoint any fit person, not being a county alderman or county councillor, to fill the office.

[Pcdunn]

In post 451, the quote from the Telegraph disproves Fisherman's point 7, in which Cross/Lechmere supposedly refused to prop up the woman he and Paul were examining.

In the Telegraph article, they are quoting Cross/Lechmere as the "witness", and have him suggesting they prop her up, while "the other man" (presumably Paul) refuses to touch her.

I've been told before that other newspaper accounts have it the other way round. Are the actual inquest documents available or not? If not, the newspaper accounts aren't the best source material to figure out what really happened.