Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Phil H]

Who's "clammering [sic] for Cross as Jack"?

I merely pointed out that it seemed odd that, as the one man ever found "standing over" the body of a victim before anyone else came along, gave a name other than the one he usually used, and used a route to work that was close to several murder sites, was not more closely scrutinised.

I also thought it would be ironic if he were ever identified as "Jack" because he has been there in plain site all this while.

If there is only a weak case for Cross/Lechmere, then why do we spend so much time discussing Hutchinson? or Kelly (Eddowes' partner0 or even Joe Barnett - on whom books have been written (one about the WRONG guy!).

Yet in Cross/Lechmere we have a man who WAS definitively associated with a body, appears NEVER to have been seriously investigated (at least from currently available records) and who at the very least was "misleading" about his identity in a murder inquiry (some might say he lied!).

I merely appeal for consistency - I don't particularly believe Cross/Lechmere "dunnit".

Phil

[Monty]

"It's interesting to see that there are those who wish to rationalisae away any difficulties with Cross/Lechmere, presumably because they don't want to have to consider another suspect or it doesn't fit their particular pre-arrived at theory."

The difficulty lies with the illogical actions of an alledged muderer.

I find it more interesting that those clammering for Cross as Jack have merely waved these actions away and focused on the non issue of a name change.

Monty....now the fuse is lit.

[Sally]

Phil

It's interesting to see that there are those who wish to rationalisae away any difficulties with Cross/Lechmere, presumably because they don't want to have to consider another suspect or it doesn't fit their particular pre-arrived at theory.

Is it that, Phil, or is it that there isn't really any substantial reason for considering him a suspect in the first place?

I mean, you know, you may be right - maybe there is more to Lechmere/Cross than meets the eye. But there are logical, rational explanations for those 'difficulties' that you refer to - the suggestion of which is nothing more or less than a reasonable counterargument.

[Phil H]

I agree, Lechmere.

It's interesting to see that there are those who wish to rationalisae away any difficulties with Cross/Lechmere, presumably because they don't want to have to consider another suspect or it doesn't fit their particular pre-arrived at theory.

I continue to believe that Cross/Lechmere is a pretty marginal "suspect" because there is not much more to do with him - difficult to research more than has been done.

But at the very least, I feel, he should be treated consistently with others associated with the murders. For instance, if somehow it emerged that Hutchinson's testimony and whereabouts did not coincide then I would predict reams of print as discussion raged; similarly if he was reported as spotted looking through MJK's window.

I don't really expect to win others over to this way of thinking, but there you go...

Phil

[Lechmere]

It is very true that there are discrepancies all over the place in this case (you could add the time delay in finding the piece of apron), but it was claimed that Cross's testimony added up which it doesn't - in my opinion.

[FrancoLoco]

He is unaccounted for between 3 and 18 minutes after leaving home and finding the body.

That sometimes happens to me too on the way to work. That doesn't make me a murderer either.

There is a discrepancy as to how close to the body he was when Paul saw him.
There is a discrepancy between how close Paul was to him before Cross says he noticed Paul, and how far away PC Thain was from PC Neil, when Neil noticed Thain.

But there are discrepancies all over the place in Whitechapel, Autumn '88. Just the 30 minutes between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m. on Berner Street is enough to drive you crazy.

[Lechmere]

Why did he give his real address? Maybe he got flustered. Who knows? If guilty maybe his primary purpose was to keep his name out of it so his immediate family and friends didn’t see his name around. If he had disappeared and hadn’t shown at the inquest it would have put him more under the spotlight and as he had to walk those streets every day to work, maybe it was the lesser of two evils. If he was guilty, then he ‘fronted it out’ successfully.
We don’t know of the police ‘checked him out’ in any other way. I would suggest that the evidence we have points in the direction that he was overlooked. We know the police did ‘check out’ the slaughtermen from round the corner, and Robert Paul. In Robert Paul’s case I suspect it was because Annie Chapman was found near his workplace and because he ‘slagged off’ the police in his newspaper interview.
Remember the police were looking mainly for a gang or for a mad foreigner at that stage. I would guess that the police were not in the least suspicious of Cross. Which is a far cry from saying he couldn’t have done it.

There is some confusion as to exactly who said what, when Cross and Paul examined the body. However it is clear they didn’t make it explicit to Mizen that she was dead.
They didn’t go looking for a policeman. They went to work and bumped into one on the way. That is significantly different. They did bugger off pretty sharpish.

To recap the suspicious aspects of his story are not limited to the name issue...

He is unaccounted for between 3 and 18 minutes after leaving home and finding the body.
There is a discrepancy as to how close to the body he was when Paul saw him.
There is a discrepancy between how close Paul was to him before Cross says he noticed Paul, and how far away PC Thain was from PC Neil, when Neil noticed Thain.
This was the only one of the ten murders where the persons who discovered the victim were not either a policeman on his beat or a passer-by who immediately raised the alarm. Incidentally Thompson wasn’t found over Coles body – he raised the alarm by blowing his whistle, and she wasn’t dead at that stage.
Although supposedly in a hurry Cross did not go the quickest way to work, which would have taken him past the recent murder site of Tabram – immediately after leaving Mizen.
The victim’s injuries were not displayed – her dress was half pulled down, suggesting the culprit wished to hide the injuries, unlike in the other instances of abdominal mutilation.
He passed the next murder scene in the company of Paul, and quite possibly also passed Miller’s Court immediately after leaving Paul.

I have just restricted myself to grounds for suspicion relating to his behaviour on the morning in question.

[Monty]

Agreed.

Monty

[FrancoLoco]

PC Thompson was found over Coles body, however he isn't under scrutiny....yet. This after drawing attention to it as did Crossm

The fact is Cross did nothing suspicious at all, and acted illogically if he was the killer.

Monty

That's exactly what I mean: he did everything the authorities would expect a citizen to do, yet is considered by some to be a suspect. I just don't see how.

[Monty]

Almost everything Charles Cross did that morning is exactly what we've been told to do since childhood when we see something wrong. He rounded up help (when Paul showed) up, he looked for a police officer, he gave his address and testified at the inquest and went on with his life.

There was one thing he didn't do by the book: he gave a name that he hadn't normally used. Still, it was his stepfather's surname, a far cry from making something up that can't be traced.

The fact that he did everything he could to assist doesn't give him a free pass. He was, after all, the only person standing near a dead body. So I imagine that the police had to have looked into his story, just for the sake of due diligence. But the fact remains that after his testimony, he disappears from the story. And I don't think that happens if the police still have the smallest suspicion about him.

PC Thompson was found over Coles body, however he isn't under scrutiny....yet. This after drawing attention to it as did Crossm

The fact is Cross did nothing suspicious at all, and acted illogically if he was the killer.

Monty

[FrancoLoco]

And the act of accompanying Paul to find a PC than clearing off ASAP to work was one of a decent citizen, no?

Almost everything Charles Cross did that morning is exactly what we've been told to do since childhood when we see something wrong. He rounded up help (when Paul showed) up, he looked for a police officer, he gave his address and testified at the inquest and went on with his life.

There was one thing he didn't do by the book: he gave a name that he hadn't normally used. Still, it was his stepfather's surname, a far cry from making something up that can't be traced.

The fact that he did everything he could to assist doesn't give him a free pass. He was, after all, the only person standing near a dead body. So I imagine that the police had to have looked into his story, just for the sake of due diligence. But the fact remains that after his testimony, he disappears from the story. And I don't think that happens if the police still have the smallest suspicion about him.

[Monty]

Again,

Cross stated, at inquest, that he had told Paul he felt the woman was dead.

This rather than buggering off sharpish.

And the act of accompanying Paul to find a PC than clearing off ASAP to work was one of a decent citizen, no?

Monty

[FrancoLoco]

Don’t forget that when he first spoke to Paul he supposedly hadn’t been nearer the body (which was lying in a very dark area) so he wouldn’t have known whether she was dead or alive, so woudn’t have said ‘no I didn’t kill her’.

Yeah, but that was just, um, Franco being Loco...

Also when they met Mizen they were both supposedly unsure whether she was dead, and if so certainly not dead via a violent knife attack. So again there doesn’t seem a reason to give a false or alternative name to curry favour with the police.

That does make for more of a mystery...as does the fact that he used a name he hadn't used for decades, yet gave his correct address and made himself available for the inquest. So it doesn't appear that he was trying to hide anything.

Since everything I think about in this case leads me to another question, is there any record indicating if the police kept him under any kind of observation over the next few weeks? I'm just wondering if the police actually did investigate him and what that would have entailed.

[Lechmere]

Don’t forget that when he first spoke to Paul he supposedly hadn’t been nearer the body (which was lying in a very dark area) so he wouldn’t have known whether she was dead or alive, so woudn’t have said ‘no I didn’t kill her’.
Also when they met Mizen they were both supposedly unsure whether she was dead, and if so certainly not dead via a violent knife attack. So again there doesn’t seem a reason to give a false or alternative name to curry favour with the police.

[FrancoLoco]

Yes that explanation has been advanced before, although I find it unconvincing as Thomas Cross the policeman died in 1869. Mizen didn’t join until 1873, although Cross wouldn’t have explicitly known that. However Mizen was only a year older than Cross so I would guess he would not have judged him old enough to have served with his step father.

True, but to play the "relative on the job" card wouldn't necessarily mean that he would hope that Mizen would recognize the name. It may be a hope that if an official further up the line recognized the name, it could take some suspicion off him. After all, he was seen near the body first. I'm sure he knew that too; his using that name could be a way to imply his innocence.

Speaking for myself, I'm pretty sure the first thing I would have said to Robert Paul was, "look at this woman lying here, and no I didn't kill her."