Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Addy]

Hi Jon,

Perhaps the ripper heard Cross's footsteps and then left?

Greetings,

Addy

[Jon Guy]

Perhaps the ripper heard Cross's footsteps and then left?

Possibly, Addy. The narrow streets and tall buildings may have amplified footsteps but there was still a lot going on around Bucks Row so it would not have been as quiet as we think at that time.

Also, it`s a good 100 hundred yards from the murder site to the corner of Brady St. Cross himself only heard Robert Paul`s footsteps when Paul was forty feet away, and Paul had already noted Cross standing in the road.

[DVV]

If he had designs on total evisceration and organ theft at that stage then why pick somewhere open and exposed like Buck Row, unlike the other murder sites. Even the random slashes to Nichol`s abdomen don`t appear to have been made in order to enter the abdomen, unlike the others.

Hi Jon,

agreed. Actually, the idea that he had been disturbed comes from Baxter, after the Chapman's murder. It's all about his theory.

Amitiés,
David

[Dave James]

Nichols was possibly the Ripper`s first victim and had not developed trophy taking. If he had designs on total evisceration and organ theft at that stage then why pick somewhere open and exposed like Buck Row, unlike the other murder sites. Even the random slashes to Nichol`s abdomen don`t appear to have been made in order to enter the abdomen, unlike the others.

Hi jon,
Good points, but was Buck's Row any more exposed than the other sites?

Annie Chapman in the yard of a house known to be used for 'immoral purposes' at a time when people were getting up and going to work and people out and about on the streets.

Liz Stride - Dutfield's Yard by a club that was just running down with people already getting ready to leave and the streets still quite busy.

Eddowes in Mitre Square near clubs just closing and discharging customers. Again very close to busy streets.

I mean, these were all open and exposed probably even more so than Buck's Row.

One thing you can say is that Jack liked to take risks! Catch me if you can!

All the best
Dave

[Phil H]

When I first started to study the Whitechapel murders with any seriousness, in about 1972, I felt that the Nichols' killing had something to tell us. I could never quite work out what. I still don't.

I have come to the conclusion gradually that there may be mistakes in the warmth of the body, allowing "Jack" a little extra time to depart the scene.

But then, more recently, I have started to ponder the question - could Cross/Letchmere have been Jack. In the dark whatever bloodstains there were may not have attracted attention. He was found standing over the body. We now know he gave a false name to the authorities. When Paul approached he simply pretended to have stumbled across the body and made up the story of a tarpaulin (for that story to have any reality, the street must surely still have been dark enough to make such confusion believeable).

Can someone enlighten me as to the grounds for dismissing Cross/Letchmere as a suspect for the other murders (or at least Chapman and Eddowes)? I assume they were assessed, but I cannot recall ever having seen them.

Thanks,

Phil

[Lechmere]

With reference to the first post by Barnaby:
The police immediately searched the railway very closely.
The slaughtermen in the yard seem to have been closely questioned also.

I think the Nichols murder is perhaps the most interesting as it shows the Ripper at work in a purer state – before he was influenced by the hue and cry that resulted from the publicity surrounding his own actions. I don’t think it was the first – I think Tabram was his first murder, but that was a try-out and didn’t receive much attention.

Because the Nichols murder is not discussed many inaccuracies get retold – about Cross, about who did what and when.

I don’t agree that there is no mystery – there is plenty. There were a number of policemen walking the beat nearby or passing through Bucks Row. Polly seems to have taken an hour to get to Bucks Row when she was last seen ten minutes away.
There are numerous errors by the police at the outset.
Also I think it is certain that Polly lay in a dark shadowy area. I think it was easier to see away from that spot – to Brady Street or up Bucks Row in a easterly direction, than it would have been to see the murder scene when approaching it at distance. This was due to the lighting.
Hence Neil could see the policeman passing Brady Street. Hence the Ripper could have seen some one approaching before they could see him. This no doubt was why Polly took her last customer to that spot.

[FrankO]

Hence Neil could see the policeman passing Brady Street. Hence the Ripper could have seen some one approaching before they could see him. This no doubt was why Polly took her last customer to that spot.

Hi Lechmere,

It's interesting to note that PC Neil heard PC Thain pass Brady Street, at a distance of some 135 yards. And that's quite probably what happened not too long before: the Ripper heard Cross turn into Buck's Row from Brady Street, which made him leave the scene.

All the best,
Frank

[Phil H]

It's interesting to note that PC Neil heard PC Thain pass Brady Street, at a distance of some 135 yards. And that's quite probably what happened not too long before: the Ripper heard Cross turn into Buck's Row from Brady Street, which made him leave the scene.

Or Cross/Lechmere heard Paul, paused in his initial mutilations then rose and stepped slightly away from the body....

Cross never mentions hearing retreating footsteps (such as PC Thompson heard when finding Coles' body) nor seeing even fleetingly any movement of another person.

Phil

[Scorpio]

Sadly, Jack is always the star and the victims are supporting players in there own tragedy. With Tabram, assisted by the florid Pearly Poll and her squaddies, widely believed to be the first in the series, there are no colourful eyewitness reports to set toungues wagging.

[FrankO]

It's interesting to note that PC Neil heard PC Thain pass Brady Street, at a distance of some 135 yards. And that's quite probably what happened not too long before: the Ripper heard Cross turn into Buck's Row from Brady Street, which made him leave the scene.

Or Cross/Lechmere heard Paul, paused in his initial mutilations then rose and stepped slightly away from the body....

Hi Phil,

Possibly, but not likely in my view. After all, the same would go for Cross, had he been the Ripper. He would very likely have heard Paul and in fact stated at the inquest that he did hear Paul's footsteps approaching from Brady Street, about forty yards away. That Cross only heard Paul then, whereas Neil heard Thain at Brady Street would fit with a person who wasn't focused on listening for sounds, for people who might be approaching, as I suspect a killer would be or a PC who had just stumbled upon a murdered woman. Still, there would have been enough time for Cross to flee had he been Nichols' killer, which would seem to most logical action. Furthermore, Cross's testimony was straightforward and there are no indications that he was Jack the Ripper.

All the best,
Frank

[Phil H]

Frank

I was being mischievous - as I recently discussed in a thread why Cross/Lechmere hadn't been taken more seriously. However, a few questions on your post:

...Cross, had he been the Ripper. He would very likely have heard Paul and in fact stated at the inquest that he did hear Paul's footsteps approaching from Brady Street, about forty yards away.

That was the precisely basis of my "cheeky" proposal that Cross rose from the corpse!! we only have Cross/Lechmere's word as to when he heard Paul, don't we? Why should we take that as true?

...Cross only heard Paul then, whereas Neil heard Thain at Brady Street would fit with a person who wasn't focused on listening for sounds, for people who might be approaching, as I suspect a killer would be or a PC who had just stumbled upon a murdered woman.

Entirely supposititious. We don't know when lechmere heard Paul - we only know what he said - and this was a man who gave an inaccurate name (i.e. as good as lied) so we have no cause to consider him veracious.

...there would have been enough time for Cross to flee had he been Nichols' killer, which would seem to most logical action.

How do you know - again that is supposititious. Cross/Lechmere walked to work that way every day, I could surmise (equally with your surmise) that he reckoned he might run into a beat policeman if he ran that way. Neither Cross/Lechmere nor paul ever said they heard retreating footsteps - yet they claimed the body to be still warm.

Furthermore, Cross's testimony was straightforward and there are no indications that he was Jack the Ripper.

It certainly wasn't straightforward as he LIED about his name. I'm not sure what the penalty is for doing so at an Inquest, but i'm sure it's not encouraged!! On what do you base the statement there are NO INDICATIONS he was JtR?

Cross/Lechmere, proven liar, was found standing over a still warm corpse, with no one else in sight! Where is your evidence that he was ever investigated seriously or in connection with the other crimes - the next one of which was further along his probable walk to work!

No, I cannot accept your dismissal of Cross/Lechmere on those grounds, even though I do myself not believe him to be "Jack". But I find him highly suspicious.

Phil

[FrankO]

It certainly wasn't straightforward as he LIED about his name.

First of all, Phil, many people in the East End had an alias and it was very common to use it. Certainly to the police or other authorities, whom they weren’t particularly fond of. There are several examples of people using an alias throughout the whole case. Secondly, I believe Cross was the name of his stepfather, so he may have used this English sounding name instead of Lechmere, the name that appears on his birth certificate.

On what do you base the statement there are NO INDICATIONS he was JtR?

On the basis that what he told sounds straightforward and rings true - apparently he didn’t look as though he had just killed a woman with a knife (no apparent blood on him), apparently there was no reason for PC Mizen to frisk him, apparently he didn’t behave as though he had something to hide and he apparently gave no reason to anybody throughout his official appearances in the Nichols case to suspect him.

Where is your evidence that he was ever investigated seriously or in connection with the other crimes - the next one of which was further along his probable walk to work!

Perhaps he wasn’t investigated seriously because there was no apparent reason to do so.

No, I cannot accept your dismissal of Cross/Lechmere on those grounds, even though I do myself not believe him to be "Jack". But I find him highly suspicious.

I’m afraid you just have to, Phil, because I’m not going to change my mind based on the fact that he gave the name of his stepfather instead of his own.

All the best,
Frank

[Sally]

Yeah...

I think the whole Cross/Lechmere thing is being overengineered, somewhat? Cross wasn't a name Charles Lechmere just made up out of the blue, or chose at random - it was a name that we know he had used as a child. As Thomas Cross appears to have had no children of his own; Charles Lechmere, clearly his adopted son by marriage, may have taken his name as well as his own in adulthood.

Of course, we don't know why he chose to use the name Cross rather than Lechmere at the inquest; but I don't know that there need to be anything nefarious in it. I don't see why both names couldn't have been legitimate, really.

[Lechmere]

True it wasn't chosen at random. It was the surname of his step father - a policeman ten years his mothers junior who had died in 1869.
She remarried again in 1872 a man eleven years her senior.
Some woman. She also brought up Charles's eldest daughter.
The only recorded time Charles was called Cross was in the 1861 census when he was about 12.
I can imagine why that name may have sprung to his mind when he chose to give Mizen a false (or of you prefer alternative) name.
But Charles didn't call himself Cross on any other recorded occasion and he had eleven children, was on the electoral register, on censuses, witnressed other events and so forth - never as Cross.

Lechmere is an English name by the way.

[Phil H]

Those of you who say there may be nothing at all of interest in the name Cross/Lechmere chose to use, may be correct. I have no idea.

But I am AMAZED that you just shrug your shoulders and turn away, while acres of space on this site anayse whether George Hutchinson was real, the details of MJK's alleged past, look into the identity of Bowyer etc.

In Lechmere/Cross we have a man who clearly misled the police. Who effectively lied and apparently got away with it.

What would we think if Hutchinson (for instance) had turned out to have lied about his name when giving evidence to the police?

As Lechmere (the poster) has said, Lechmere/Cross only seems to have resorted to this alias once - after finding a murdered woman, and you don't find that odd, or worth looking into?

Sally: we don't know why he chose to use the name Cross rather than Lechmere at the inquest; but I don't know that there need to be anything nefarious in it.

You don't see anything odd in lying in a court (!!!) -what do you think the coroner migth have done had it come out that Cross was not his usual name? Wasn't misleading the police then, as now, an offence?

And this was not just a simple witness like Mrs Prater, or Sarah Lewis, or even a Mrs Darrell/Long where even the police seemed confused. Here was a man found STANDING OVER THE BODY which was still warm. A man who's journey to work took him past the scenes of most of the crimes (Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Mckenzie).

I have no axe to grind here - I don't believe Cross "dun it" - but the lack of inquisitiveness on the part of fellow members frankly astonishes me given the minutiae of debate on other things here.

Phil