Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Lechmere]

From the other forum we find that Charles Lechmere moved to Carlton Road – about five minutes walk from Doveton Street around 1902 and ran a grocery shop.

Interestingly (to me anyway) I was once stopped by the police minding my own businessish outside the Carlton (closed now I think, on the northern corner of Carlton Road by the railway arch through to Morpeth Street) and, for my own reasons at the time I gave a false name. It wasn’t an alias, just a false name.

On the subject of aliases, Cross was a family man in regular employment. Prostitutes and criminals often had aliases – but I don’t think ‘normal’ people did.

Here’s a picture which may be of minor interest to those researchers on the other forum.

[Lechmere]

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.

Also, if Cross was so eager to get to work on time, why didn’t he walk the quickest route? Why did he go on a detour to accompany Robert Paul? And it is also clear that they didn’t tell an alarming story of murder on the streets to Mizen, such as might have caused him to keep them with him, as Mizen continued with his knocking up duties for a short while.

[FrancoLoco]

The other alternative is that he used a name that he had never used before as it was the first one that he could think of, and maybe he had a grudge against the police as his stepfather during his formative years was a policeman.

There's an alternative to the alternative there: he may have used the name because his stepfather was a policeman.

"My Dad (or Cousin, or Brother) is on the job, officer. You may know him, he's <<< insert cop's name here >>>. "

I had heard that conversation quite a few times back in college, while riding with a friend who had relatives in the NYPD. If Cross had used that name the only time we have a record of him being involved with any police matter, there's always the possibility that he's thinking, "please, I've got at least one relative in your department, can I just go on to work now and get on with my life?"

This doesn't mean he was the Ripper. Let's not forget that he was already running late for work, in a day and age where that could mean your being fired immediately. Perhaps he just wanted to get to his job without any more trouble.

[DVV]

they had a prejudice in favour of someone who had a steady job and a regular address, as opposed to someone not in regular employment and living in temporary accomodation. There is plenty of evidence for this being the case. Just as the tended to have a prejudice against Jews.

No, it depends. I've posted an article that clearly shows they were after a dosser at a time.

[Lechmere]

The question of 'checking out' arose here in the context of whether the police would have 'checked out' Cross (as a witness) to establish whether there would have been grounds for him to be a suspect. It has to be considered as a possibility.

I added that yes this could be a possibility as I had said that the police would likely have 'checked out' Hutchinson (as a witness).

Although Hutchinson was a seemingly discredited witness which I would guess would make the prospect of him being 'checking out' more likely than it would be for Cross.

Maybe neither of them were 'checked out'.

The house to house searching was after the double event wasn't it? In a restricted mostly Jewish area, as Jews were another police target group?

I didn't suggest that the police only focussed on itinerants.
I merely suggested that they had a prejudice in favour of someone who had a steady job and a regular address, as opposed to someone not in regular employment and living in temporary accomodation. There is plenty of evidence for this being the case. Just as the tended to have a prejudice against Jews.

[Ben]

We’ve discussed the issue of “checking out” Hutchinson in considerable depth on other threads, but there remains a considerable difference between a discredited witness and an exonerated suspect, and it takes a hefty speculative stretch to convert the former into the latter, particularly with no evidence. It is more likely that Hutchinson was dismissed as a publicity-seeker once his account was thrown out, as was the case with various other “witnesses”, including Emmanuel Violenia and Matthew Packer, who were evidently considered by the police to be liars.

The police conducted "house-to-house" inquiries, and didn’t restrict their focus to the “itinerant” only.

I would personally welcome further discussion on the subject Cross/Lechmere, and would be the first to concede that he is by no means a wholly implausible suspect. Equally, I have no objections to anyone advancing his candidacy along similar lines to those already proposed of Hutchinson. I would suggest, though, that any effort to promote Cross as a better suspect than Hutchinson will prove less successful, and would not be a worthwhile pursuit in any case.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Obviously we cannot know for certain what Cross's route to work was, but the quickest was down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street. He was a carman - the equivalent of a white van man - and should have known the quickest routes from A to B.

Maybe if he was bored he would try another route - but probably not when he was late for work. I'm not sure if he had time to get bored with that route as he had only moved in to Doveton Street a short time before.

[Phil H]

One detail Phil – I don’t think Cross will have walked past 29 Hanbury Street on his way to work every day. This is one of the key and totally unnoticed facts that has many possible implications. He would have walked down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street. It is five minutes quicker that way.

Lechmere, you are of course, quite right. My apologies if I seemed to add certainty to his route. I thought that I had tried to use the word "potential" or "probable" (or some such) when I had made the point previously. If I forgot to do so in this case it was an oversight.

But equally, we cannot say he DID NOT use that route, at least on occasion. It was not far out of his way, was it?

Phil

[lynn cates]

who, me?

Hello Lechmere.

"Lynn – I can see you are setting poor Isenschmidt up as a child, Nichols and Chapman killer."

Would I do that? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

On the ‘checking out‘ score the circumstances are very different and it is up to individual interpretation to decided whether there would have been equal reason for the police the check each out.

I will add that a further difference that should inform us on whether each (Hutchinson and Cross) was ‘checked out’ is the presumption that Hutchinson was later (or sooner perhaps) dismissed as a credible witness – based on a couple of press reports and on his absence from later memoirs discussing Ripper sightings (except Dew).

This apparent dismissal has understandably fed the belief that the police came to the conclusion that Hutchinson’s story was not true. That in turn leads me to suppose that he would have been checked out more rigorously than Cross.

I am not saying that the more suspicious someone’s story is the less likely they could be the culprit. I am saying that the more suspicious someone’s story is the more likely it is that the police would take extra notice.

That is an explanation as to why Cross was and is ignored, whereas Hutchinson hasn’t been ignored and (dare I say it) was probably investigated thoroughly by the police – although we cannot know as most records are missing. That is my guess.

As I have also stated, Cross was also a regular householder with a regular job. Hutchinson was neither and the records indicate that the police tended to focus their attentions on the itinerant rather than the seemingly stable, although we now know that serial killers come in all varieties.

I am mindful that this is a Polly Nichols victim section of the forum not a suspect thread, so it isn’t really the place for a Cross v Hutchinson debate – although it is interesting to ponder why one is discussed ad nauseam while the other ignored.

One detail Phil – I don’t think Cross will have walked past 29 Hanbury Street on his way to work every day. This is one of the key and totally unnoticed facts that has many possible implications. He would have walked down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street. It is five minutes quicker that way.

Mizen seems to have been more concerned with continuing with his knocking up duties than taking heed of what Cross and Paul (although I’m not sure Paul did any of the talking) told him. Maybe because they under played what they had found.

Lynn – I can see you are setting poor Isenschmidt up as a child, Nichols and Chapman killer.

[lynn cates]

Fiddymont

Hello Phil.

"Lawende and Mrs Long both saw men who were standing still didn't they?"

Yes, I think so. But try Mrs. Fiddymont's friend.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Sally - thanks for your reply - how nice to find that, for once, we are in essential harmony!

But, a couple of points - first, the problem that recurs with the witnesses in the case is that we know little about many of them. Cross is just a name, really, a bit-part player in the drama. If we knew more about him perhaps we could hypothesise further - but how to advance our knowledge? I spend enough of my time trying to learn more about the people involved in the case, and I almost never succeed - it's very difficult in some cases.

I agree absolutely. I started reading about JtR seriously when I was around 21 (I'd had Cullen's and McCormick's books before that) sitting under the statue of "Uncle Jack" in the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth! So I have spent just short of 40 years, like you, trying to make sense of all the evidence - and I've gone through the stage of thinking (as suspect books came out one after another) "Ooh! that's an interesting idea, I think he might have something." I did that for Druitt, Kosminski and even for a few months Stephen Knight (but I was still young then)!! And then new evidence emerges and you are back to square one. So now I keep several, balls in the air - I'm a bit of a Druittist, partly persuaded by Kosminski (or someone of his ilk) and even look twice at Barnett, as you know!

Second - I think we come back eventually to the question of what sort of person we are looking for in the Ripper(s) (just for you, Phil!).

Sally - I do appreciate the exta "s". Thank you. But I don't rule out one Ripper, I just find it more useful to have a second hypothesis on hand, given that the first one seems increasingly sterile and the alternative - multiple killers, offers some interesting possibilities.

If Cross, Hutchinson, etc can be shown to have had no (traceable) involvement with crime; should we discount them from our enquiries?

We should probably discount them becauuse we have insufficient evidence to do anything else!! All the discussion of them is effectively supposititious, with speculation built upon hypothesis - a dangerously unstanel comination, in my view.

But I think my comment in a previous post, sums up why Lechmere/Cross has been intriguing me. This discussion has allowed me to glimpse the point. It is that it would just be SO ironic if the man standing at the first canonical murder had always been our man. But I agree, we will never know.

Thanks, I enjoyed your post very much,

Phil

[c.d.]

Well we know that Tumblety sashayed.

c.d.

[Sally]

Phil

I don't think that on 31 August the police knew what they were looking for, and I suspect that Cross/Lechmere was taken at face value. They may even have been looking for a "gang" after Smith and Tabram... If Lechmere/Cross gave an alibi for one of both of the previous cases, he might have been dismissed as a potential suspect in the Nichol's killing.

Yes, I agree that it was probably too early on at that stage - and yes, they may have been looking for a gang, or at least more than one perpetrator, thanks to Dr Kileen, whose life was otherwise unremarkable - perhaps like that of Cross or Hutchinson?

Three police constables were involved soon after the discovery of the body, only one of them met Cross/Lechmere and Paul and he did not insist they went back with him to the scene - I am sure that he did not search or question them very deeply if at all.

Yes, I concur. All this agreement, Phil. I don't know, I really don't..

By the time of Chapman's death the "Leather Apron" scare was underway, was it not - they were looking for a foreign man who dressed in a particular way. Would it have "crossed" (!) anyone's mind that the man who appeared at the Nichols' inquest probably walked past 29 Hanbury St every day on his way to work?

Crossed!

No, I doubt it. And you could you could say that Lechmere's habitual proximity to the murder site might be viewed as suspicious. But how can we know? It might have no significance at all.

By the time of MJK's death, the police were looking for a man who could have killed at least FIVE victims. But let's for a moment consider a scenario in which Cross/Lechmere killed only Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes (I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to follow the reasoning) he would surely have been ruled out as a suspect if he could have shown he could not have killed Stride and MJK - even if anyone had thought about "that bloke" found standing over or close to the corpse of Nichols!

I think you're right, Phil, hypothetically.

But - and this is the point that strikes me as so ironic what if "Jack" - the killer we have never been able to identify - had always been known to us, and was the man found so close to the first canonical victim, who's name (s) have long been known!!!

Talk about a solution always in plain sight - it would be so classically simple. What fools we would have been.

Well, if the best hiding place is in plain sight (as it always seems to be in murder mystery stories) then Cross must be a contender, I guess.

But, a couple of points - first, the problem that recurs with the witnesses in the case is that we know little about many of them. Cross is just a name, really, a bit-part player in the drama. If we knew more about him perhaps we could hypothesise further - but how to advance our knowledge? I spend enough of my time trying to learn more about the people involved in the case, and I almost never succeed - it's very difficult in some cases.

Second - I think we come back eventually to the question of what sort of person we are looking for in the Ripper(s) (just for you, Phil!).

I mean, are we looking for a person who shows evidence of criminal activity? Most killers have also been involved in other crimes - because murder is on the road, but it isn't the road in itself, usually - a muderer doesn't appear fully fledged out of the blue; but has travelled to get there.

If Cross, Hutchinson, etc can be shown to have had no (traceable) involvement with crime; should we discount them from our enquiries?

[Phil H]

Ministry of Funny Walks

IF there were really a Leather Apron, perhaps it would do to compare the various suspects and their walks.

I don't know whether you have your tongue in your cheek, LC, but do we HAVE such detailed information about ANY suspect? Lawende and Mrs Long both saw men who were standing still didn't they?

Phil