Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

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

  • Hi all

    The Jewish Shabbat does not start at midnight Friday, nor does it end midnight Saturday. Shabbat is observed from a few minutes before sunset on Friday evening until a few minutes after the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday night. The exact times, therefore, differ from week to week and from place to place, depending on the time of sunset at each location.

    Regards

    Observer

    Comment


    • I inserted the word "practically" because certain posters seemed to quibble about the word "over" in earlier discussions. Given the width of Bucks Row (which I know from standing there) the difference between over and near is a question of feet and inches. I'd say "over" without qualm.
      Over suggests Cross was standing above the body, and therefore implies direct connection to it. I have also stood in Bucks Row many a time and can assure you halfway across the street is not over the body. However, granted, it is in close proximity. Whilst this may smack of semantics its is a true assessment and does not mislead.



      Paul saw Cross first and hadnt noted the body until the Carman had pointed it out to him.

      How do you know, Monty?
      Pauls inquest testimony. He clearly states that "as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

      Cross inquest testimony states that he had "walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. 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."


      In other words Paul saw Cross, cross moved toward him, Paul moved towards the pavement to avoid him and it was at this stage Cross engaed him in conversation and pointed out Nichols.

      Neither contradict the other on this.

      Oh, we know what was said, but my speculations in my post earlier today were hypothetical and looking at a slightly different scenario. I neither believe Lechmere/Cross was the Ripper, not question the evidence, but the discussion was why he acted/might have acted as he did.

      Phil
      Well, how did he act? I mean read his testimony and others associated with him. The use of a differing name is hardly damning, it does not directly smack of deciet, I can think of other valid and reasonable reasons why he used the name of Cross.

      The use of an open mind works both ways.

      Monty
      Monty

      https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

      Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

      Comment


      • Whilst this may smack of semantics its is a true assessment and does not mislead.

        It is also perceptual and subjective - you may say near, I may say over and neither of us need be wrong.

        Pauls inquest testimony. He clearly states that "as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

        I have said, I do not question the evidence. But all this shows is - at best - what PAUL believed, or recalled. His judgement on near/over is as subjective as ours - further it depends on his recall. It is testimony and must be accepted as such - but I am entitled to question it.

        Cross inquest testimony states that he had "walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. 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."

        Again this is what Lechmere/Cross SAID - but we know he was misrepresenting his identity to the inquest - why not other things? Sorry but logically a lack of truthfulness calls into question ALL that person says? If Lechmere /Cross had been caught out on the issue of his name - do you not think the Coroner and jury might have had something to say about his reliability?

        In other words Paul saw Cross, cross moved toward him, Paul moved towards the pavement to avoid him and it was at this stage Cross engaed him in conversation and pointed out Nichols.

        If you like. I'll humour you - but I think you are placing much reliance on words spoken that may not tell all.

        The use of a differing name is hardly damning, it does not directly smack of deciet,

        I'm afraid i cannot follow you there - it's ridiculous. He LIED IN A COURT OF LAW! Whatever reasons you can think of for him having done it - HE LIED!

        Now how would a barrister have dealt with that in a trial? I think Lechmere/Cross would have been utterly discredited as a witness, if not charged with perjury or contempt. I can think of other valid and reasonable reasons why he used the name of Cross.

        I repeat, I do NOT believe Lechmere/Cross guilty of anything. I respect testimony as a sound basis for discussion. But we still have to examine it, cross-question it, analyse it, understand it - otherwise we get nowhere.

        Phil

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Monty View Post
          The use of a differing name is hardly damning, it does not directly smack of deciet, I can think of other valid and reasonable reasons why he used the name of Cross.
          It doesn't smack of deceit, Neil, because it is deceit!

          I'm sure that there are any number of innocuous - and, perhaps somewhat understandable - reasons that Lechmere might have chosen for identifying himself as 'Cross', during the course of the investigation, into the death of Mary Ann Nichols.

          But, there is never a "valid" or "reasonable" reason for identifying one's self, by an undocumented surname.

          ~~~

          Those that are intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should accept the fact, that at this juncture, they are 'spinning their wheels', as the field of 'Ripperology', unfortunately, is not interested.

          That the entire field should be so intrigued, can be argued, 'until the cows come home'.

          They should stop blowing smoke, and start looking further into that, which can be gleaned, regarding Charles Allen Lechmere, aka 'Charles Allen Cross'.

          ~~~

          Those that cling to the name 'Cross', and, that are not intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should ask themselves whether they are, perhaps, being complacent!
          Last edited by Colin Roberts; 06-14-2011, 05:14 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Colin Roberts View Post
            It doesn't smack of deceit, Neil, because it is deceit!

            I'm sure that there are any number of innocuous - and, perhaps somewhat understandable - reasons that Lechmere might have chosen for identifying himself as 'Cross', during the course of the investigation, into the death of Mary Ann Nichols.

            But, there is never a "valid" or "reasonable" reason for identifying one's self, by an undocumented surname.

            ~~~

            Those that are intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should accept the fact, that at this juncture, they are 'spinning their wheels', as the field of 'Ripperology', unfortunately, is not interested.

            That the entire field should be so intrigued, can be argued, 'until the cows come home'.

            They should stop blowing smoke, and start looking further into that, which can be gleaned, regarding Charles Allen Lechmere, aka 'Charles Allen Cross'.

            ~~~

            Those that cling to the name 'Cross', and, that are not intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should ask themselves whether they are, perhaps, being complacent!
            Hi Colin
            I agree. The only thing that I can think of is that he did not want his true name out in public for some reason.

            Or perhaps he thought Cross sounded better than "swamp of leeches".
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Colin Roberts View Post
              I'm sure that there are any number of innocuous - and, perhaps somewhat understandable - reasons that Lechmere might have chosen for identifying himself as 'Cross', during the course of the investigation, into the death of Mary Ann Nichols.

              But, there is never a "valid" or "reasonable" reason for identifying one's self, by an undocumented surname.
              Awkward!

              Let's try ...

              I'm sure that there are any number of innocuous reasons that Lechmere might have had, for choosing to identify himself as 'Cross', during the course of the investigation, into the death of Mary Ann Nichols.

              But, there cannot be a "valid" or "reasonable" reason for choosing to identify one's self, by an undocumented surname.

              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              The only thing that I can think of is that he did not want his true name out in public for some reason.
              Which, of course, is entirely possible!

              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              Or perhaps he thought Cross sounded better than "swamp of leeches".


              I would sincerely hope that the generally accepted pronunciation of his name was lek-mir.

              The sound of lech-mir makes my skin crawl up the back of my neck.

              I think that I would go by some other name, as well, if people were inclined to pronounce my name lech-mir, as opposed to lek-mir.

              Comment


              • Cross inquest testimony states that he had "walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. 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."

                Again this is what Lechmere/Cross SAID - but we know he was misrepresenting his identity to the inquest - why not other things? Sorry but logically a lack of truthfulness calls into question ALL that person says? If Lechmere /Cross had been caught out on the issue of his name - do you not think the Coroner and jury might have had something to say about his reliability?
                And Paul backs his statement, saying he also saw first Cross in the middle of the road, not over the body, which is misleading.

                The use of a differing name is hardly damning, it does not directly smack of deciet,

                I'm afraid i cannot follow you there - it's ridiculous. He LIED IN A COURT OF LAW! Whatever reasons you can think of for him having done it - HE LIED!

                Now how would a barrister have dealt with that in a trial? I think Lechmere/Cross would have been utterly discredited as a witness, if not charged with perjury or contempt. I can think of other valid and reasonable reasons why he used the name of Cross.

                I repeat, I do NOT believe Lechmere/Cross guilty of anything. I respect testimony as a sound basis for discussion. But we still have to examine it, cross-question it, analyse it, understand it - otherwise we get nowhere
                Sorry, can you cite the evidence that proved he lied? There is a possibility of a valid reason, as of this moment, of which we are unaware of.

                Cross wasnt on trial, it was an inquest.

                Monty
                Monty

                https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                Comment


                • Originally Posted by Monty
                  The use of a differing name is hardly damning, it does not directly smack of deciet, I can think of other valid and reasonable reasons why he used the name of Cross


                  It doesn't smack of deceit, Neil, because it is deceit!
                  I ask you to read my words again Colin. I stated directly.


                  Those that are intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should accept the fact, that at this juncture, they are 'spinning their wheels', as the field of 'Ripperology', unfortunately, is not interested.

                  That the entire field should be so intrigued, can be argued, 'until the cows come home'.

                  They should stop blowing smoke, and start looking further into that, which can be gleaned, regarding Charles Allen Lechmere, aka 'Charles Allen Cross'.
                  My italics - Agreed. Never desputed.

                  Those that cling to the name 'Cross', and, that are not intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should ask themselves whether they are, perhaps, being complacent!
                  Cross is the name he gave himself at inquest, and therefore one, I assume, he wanted to be known by. I am merely giving him respect by referring to him as Cross. Who the hell are you, I or another to pass judgement?

                  Now I admire your (and others) research into him, however I require something more substantial and confirming before I labelled him as a complete cad and certainly before labelling him as Jack.

                  Monty
                  Monty

                  https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                  Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                  Comment


                  • Sorry, can you cite the evidence that proved he lied? There is a possibility of a valid reason, as of this moment, of which we are unaware of.

                    If you cannot tell truth from falsehood - should you be out without an adult? If you disagree then define "lie" as you understand it.

                    To me he lied, whether he had an excuse, a valid reason or something else. he was a man found standing beside/over/close to a murdered woman, and he LIED! I doubt a court or a coroner would have been as understanding if it had come out under questioning.

                    He did not give his usual name to the authorities - he told an untruth and thus LIED. An inquest is a court of law and rules and penalties apply, as far as I know.

                    Phil

                    Comment


                    • Hi Phil

                      You just don't get it do you? There are a number of reasons why individuals change their names. Some adopt the maiden name of their mother, that is, after a falling out with their father. Some change their name because of a stigma attached to that name for one reason or another. Lets not label Cross a liar until more research can be carried out.

                      Regards

                      Observer

                      Comment


                      • Ah, personal insults Phil. Last bastion of the desperate. Disappointing and rather immature, along with tiresome. I've been here for over a decade, I've been insulted by bigger and better. If you wish to make an impact with such inane comments try it on a Newbie, it won't wash with me.

                        I assume you cannot provide the evidence I requested. Thought not.

                        Maybe you can answer this, do we know everything regarding Cross and his life? Every last detail? Every known document and record?

                        Or are we making assumptions, and accusations, based on half the information available to us?

                        Monty
                        Monty

                        https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                        Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                        http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                        Comment


                        • Oh dear, a skin crawling moment Ė it is most certainly pronounced:
                          Lech to rhyme with Sketch
                          Mere to rhyme with pier.

                          I think we need to introduce some more evidence Ė namely the newspaper interview Robert Paul gave on the evening of the murder, most likely on his way home from work.

                          It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. 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." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen here, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

                          I will make the following observations
                          1. This statement is Ďuncontaminatedí by Mizensís and Crossís subsequent statements at the inquest. It is Paulís own immediate account of the events as he saw it, or as he wanted others to see it with respect to his involvement.
                          2. He says he passed the scene at 3.45 am. If true Cross had at the very least 8 minutes that are unaccounted for, between leaving his home and meeting Paul.
                          3. He says Cross was Ďstanding where the woman wasí Ė not in the middle of the road.
                          4. He makes it sound like he took the lead in investigating Nicholsís condition.
                          5. He says he knew she was dead.
                          6. He says that she was cold and must have been dead for some time.
                          7. He says he told Cross that he, Paul, would tell the first policeman he met.
                          8. He says he did the talking when he met Mizen, and it is not clear that Cross was even with him.
                          9. He says he told Mizen she was dead.
                          10. He says Mizen continued his knocking up duties and didnít rush to the scene of the crime.

                          Paulís account maximises his own involvement, it isnít stretching things to suggest that he glorified it.
                          For example both Cross and Mizen say that Cross did the talking, not Paul. Similarly Cross implies that he took the lead in the prodding of Nicholsís body. This is an understandable human response, particularly when speaking to the press, quite possibly for reward.
                          Paul gave another interview, after his appearance at the inquest, in which he moaned about his treatment by the police. The interview reproduced above also betrays an anti-police tone.
                          Paul was clearly wrong about Nicholsís body being cold, as this is contradicted by all the other witnesses. Perhaps his story was already influenced by the first newspaper reports that suggested that Pollyís may have been dumped there after having been murdered elsewhere.
                          Paul seems certain that he knew Nichols was dead. This implies that it was Cross who introduced the element of uncertainty to Mizen.
                          Confirmation that Mizen did not see it as an urgent situation is provided by Mizen continuing with his knocking up duties.

                          I will highlight again that Paul states that Cross (whose name he clearly didnít know) was standing where the woman was. Or over the body.

                          Comment


                          • I'd take inquest testimony over a news report anytime, and inquest testimony by both men have Cross in the middle of the road.

                            It seems, as ever with this case, people are being slective in their presentations.

                            Monty
                            Monty

                            https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                            Comment


                            • The pronunciation of Lechmere is apparently Lek Murr. Lek as in check, and murr as in fur.

                              O
                              Last edited by Observer; 06-15-2011, 02:14 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                                Sorry, can you cite the evidence that proved he lied? There is a possibility of a valid reason, as of this moment, of which we are unaware of.
                                He lied, Neil. Regardless of the reason, for which he chose to do so; he lied!

                                You have seen the evidence that strongly suggests that he lived his entire life, - from womb, to tomb - as 'Lechmere'.

                                Yet, upon finding himself mixed up, in what he apparently perceived as being an awkward set of circumstances, he chose to identify himself as 'Cross'.

                                I am sorry, Neil. But, that was clearly a lie!

                                And, again; there can be no "valid" reason for choosing to identify one's self, by a surname, for which there is no documentation of any connection, to one's actual identity.

                                There might be a multitude of seemingly 'understandable' reasons. But, there can be no "valid" reason.

                                Originally posted by Monty View Post
                                Cross is the name he gave himself at inquest, and therefore one, I assume, he wanted to be known by. I am merely giving him respect by referring to him as Cross. Who the hell are you, I or another to pass judgement?
                                Stop the press!

                                The unfortunate wretch that was murdered in Mitre Square, in the Aldgate Ward of the City of London, on 30 September, 1888, shall henceforth be known to history as 'Mary Anne Kelly'. Any future 'discoveries' that her name was actually Catherine Eddowes shall be ignored.



                                Originally posted by Monty View Post
                                Now I admire your (and others) research into him, however I require something more substantial and confirming before I labelled him as a complete cad and certainly before labelling him as Jack.
                                Nobody, but nobody, but nobody, has asked you to label Charles Lechmere, as 'Jack'.

                                Originally posted by Observer View Post
                                You just don't get it do you? There are a number of reasons why individuals change their names. Some adopt the maiden name of their mother, that is, after a falling out with their father. Some change their name because of a stigma attached to that name for one reason or another. Lets not label Cross a liar until more research can be carried out.
                                "Cross" did not change his name! He lived his entire life, - from womb, to tomb - as 'Lechmere'.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X