Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

So that's not clammering (sic) for Cross to be Jack Phil?

His actions at the scene, if he was her killer, were to me illogical. The fact remains Cross loitered at the scene, engaged a 3rd party, drew attention to the 3rd party thta he thought the woman was dead, then went with that 3rd party to find a Constable to report their find, gave testimony at inquest and then, to top it all, gave his address.

Hmmmm

Monty

[Phil H]

If what I wrote constitutes "clamouring" in your eyes , Monty, then you have a pretty low threshold. No wonder people get strident on Casebook - mild comment would go unrecognised.

As I said, I am interested in consistency and the potential irony. I have never proposed Cross/Lechmere as a suspect, except I think to make a point.

His actions at the scene, if he was her killer, were to me illogical. [My emphasis.]

I think the key words there are those I have BOLDED.

I see no reason why a clever risk-taker - and we know JtR took risks - could not have "loitered at the scene, engaged a 3rd party, [drawn] attention to the 3rd party thta he thought the woman was dead, then went with that 3rd party to find a Constable to report their find, gave testimony at inquest and then, to top it all, gave his address."

People discuss Hutchinson as a suspect and he gave a statement to the police.

It is even possible - were we to assume for a moment that JtR was not a complete lunatic obviously unable to control himself - that he had a pre-thought out "story" to use were he to be discovered almost in flagrante - such as "hey, look I just discovered a body!"

So, I am neither clamouring, Monty, not convinced by your dismissal of the arguments.

Phil

[Monty]

Im not here to convince you Phil. Im sure youre bright enough to draw your own conclusions.

The fact remains that it would have been easier and less risky to have fled from Paul rather than hide in a doorway until the man was vertually upon him. Presuming his sight and hearing were satisfactory.

And Hutchinson holds no sway with me either, not that it matters.

Monty

[Lechmere]

I think I provided quite a few more reasons to suspect Cross, over and above the name issue.

However, just suppose for a moment that he did do it.

Say he is over the body, facing west in the direction that Neil would come from, as he was probably well that this was the direction of Neil’s beat, as this was his route to work
Then he is interrupted by the sound of approaching footsteps behind him – say 100 yards away.

What are his options? He can leave the body rapidly and retreat westwards, possibly into the arms of Neil. But who is it coming behind him? Another policeman or a civilian? If he flees and it is a policeman, he could be pursued into the arms of Neil.

It can easily be argued that his best option would be to brazen it out.

He could have wiped his hands on Polly’s clothes, pulled down her dress as much as possible, hidden his knife and reversed into the middle of the street just as Paul gets to 40 years away.

How unrealistic is any of this?

The rest follows, with Cross putting on an insignificant humble look.

[Phil H]

Im not here to convince you Phil.

I never asked you to, Monty. Indeed, my views here are not about believing something or not - and i am seeking to convince you of nothing, Discussion assists thought, raises new ideas and possibilities - is a good thing. I'm just seeking to shed a little light into one aspect of the case that doesn't get discussed much if at all. I have NO axe to grind!

And Hutchinson holds no sway with me either, not that it matters.

Then, quite frankly that part of the discussion was not FOR you. My point was simply that Hutchinson has been discussed ad nauseam, Lechmere/Cross hardly at all and that rarely and indirectly. Surely, on a forum like Casebook, with debate hardly overflowing day by day, we have time and opportunity to discuss almost any aspect of the case, however minor (and do!).

So where's the problem and why try to close down debate/discussion? It does no harm to anyone.

Individual judgements on people's actual or potential responses to situations will differ because we are all different. To expose those is (IMHO) both stimulating and informative.

Thanks for your view, Monty

Phil

[Monty]

Hold on Phil,

Where am I trying to close this thread?

I was merely providing a reason /reasons why Cross isn't such as a suspicious Chap as others propose. You gave tweo reasons, invalid in my opinion, and missed the main one as to why people do not discuss his validity as a murderer.

If you wish to have a debate, then do not state others are not prepared to talk about him because they are either pushing an aternate suspect or just pain tired of discussing yet another suspect.

There is a more viable reason.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil H. Since you have a suspect to support, should we now dismiss anything you have to offer out of hand, under the assumption it's motivated solely by your theory? Just wondering since that's how you work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

If I HAD a suspect, your post might have some validity Tom, but I don't. I have written, earlier this morning, that I have NOT promoted Cross/Lechmere as a suspect.

...should we now dismiss anything you have to offer out of hand, under the assumption it's motivated solely by your theory? Just wondering since that's how you work.

You are, of course, free to treat my posts in any way you wish - indeed, I often dismiss my own posts out of hand.

I don't think, though, that you'll find I have any particular "theory", again I have made it clear several times that my approach to this case is one of "juggling" several alternatives, as it is quite impossible (IMHO) to draw absolute conclusions on the basis of the partial and divergent evidence we have.

My point, which I think you are referring to, is that there are people on these boards who do not appreciate debate, or recognition of, alternatives to their pet (or published) theory.

But please feel free to dismiss my posts anytime,

Phil