Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

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

  • 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.

    Comment


    • 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
      Last edited by Ben; 06-01-2011, 01:33 AM.

      Comment


      • 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.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • Yes that explanation has been advanced before, although I find it unconvincing as Thomas Cross the policeman died in 1869. Mizen didnít join until 1873, although Cross wouldnít 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 didnít he walk the quickest route? Why did he go on a detour to accompany Robert Paul? And it is also clear that they didnít 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.

              Comment


              • From the other forum we find that Charles Lechmere moved to Carlton Road Ė 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 wasnít 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 Ė but I donít think Ďnormalí people did.

                Hereís a picture which may be of minor interest to those researchers on the other forum.
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                  Yes that explanation has been advanced before, although I find it unconvincing as Thomas Cross the policeman died in 1869. Mizen didnít join until 1873, although Cross wouldnít 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."

                  Comment


                  • Donít forget that when he first spoke to Paul he supposedly hadnít been nearer the body (which was lying in a very dark area) so he wouldnít have known whether she was dead or alive, so woudnít have said Ďno I didnít kill herí.
                    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 doesnít seem a reason to give a false or alternative name to curry favour with the police.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                      Donít forget that when he first spoke to Paul he supposedly hadnít been nearer the body (which was lying in a very dark area) so he wouldnít have known whether she was dead or alive, so woudnít have said Ďno I didnít kill herí.
                      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 doesnít 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.

                      Comment


                      • 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
                        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 View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FrancoLoco View Post
                            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
                            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 View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Agreed.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X