Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Sally]

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.

Yes, I know all this. I see Thomas Cross as having adopted Charles and his sister

The only recorded time Charles was called Cross was in the 1861 census when he was about 12.

Yes, shortly after his mother married Cross in 1858. He was a child at that point, however. As an adult, he did use his father's name, Lechmere, on all official documents. We actually don't know whether this was the name he was using in every day life. He may have considered it his 'official' name.

Lechmere is an English name by the way

Que? I don't think I doubted it. Lechmere's family came from Hereford. That was in England last time I looked!

Phil:

I take your point. But the thing is, a lot of people involved in the case seem to have lied to the police/court in some detail or another. The more one looks into these people, the more this becomes apparent - the details they give regarding themselves don't match what is evident from the historic record. If we decided that they were all to be treated as suspicious because of this, I feel it would be a little indiscriminate: people may have misled the police for a number of personal reasons, which are for the most part unrecoverable by us today.

I don't consider witness like Bowyer and Lewis to be in this category. I think they were in shock, as are many witnesses after a crime; and remembered further details after their initial interview. I have personal experience of this, and I certainly didn't have perfect memory straight after the fact. These people may have been dishonest, but I don't consider there to be any compelling evidence to the fact.

Why did Lechmere lie? Who knows? You may be correct - perhaps we should look more closely at him. Your drawing together of his presence at the Nichols murder site with his having given the name Cross to the police to present him as a suspect is one way of looking at it. On the other hand, those elements may not be related in that particular way.

If he lied, assuming it wasn't simply that he was using Cross in everyday life; he lied to protect himself. Did he do that because he killed Nichols, or because he didn't want to get involved?

I don't know, but this does continue to be an interesting discussion. I see that the topic of lying witnesses is very fashionable around here at the moment!

Best regards, Lechmere and Phil

Sally

[SarahLee]

The issue of the name is certainly an interesting one . . . although it's not something I feel I can immediately chalk up as evidence of deceit.

I've retained my maiden name and on all official documents that's who I am - but I still answer to Mrs X for any enquiries from contacts that are registered in my husband's name e.g. utilities companies, vets etc. Not out of dishonesty but because it's easier than going into the whole "actually it's Ms Y, but I'm married to Mr X" routine.

What I'm tying to say is that it's quite plausible for him to have officially used the name Lechmere, yet to have been known as Cross on an informal day to day basis for which are are no records.

That's entirely supposition of course and by no means grounds to dismiss any other possibilities out of hand. In my mind it certainly warrants further thought.
There is without a doubt something "odd" about the whole thing, but making the leap to "he's a liar" or deliberately out to mislead is a little too quick for me at this stage.

[Sally]

Why is there little interest in the Nichols Murder?

Because nobody saw 'Jack', or his victim before she was killed - because everyone was busy watching the Shadwell dry dock fire.

The premise that Lechmere was the Ripper is interesting. I just wondered though, if the police had any suspicion of him at all - wouldn't they have checked him out? I mean, if he was using the name Lechmere in every day life, wouldn't that have been obvious if they'd enquired even a little?

For example if they'd visited his workplace:

'Good morning Sir, we're here to enquire about Charles Cross'

'Charles who?'

From which point the police would have concluded either that Cross had lied about his workplace (and so who knows what else); or if they had established that he was actually called Lechmere; that he lied about his name (and so who knows what else)

A comparison with Citizen Hutch has already been made by Phil - and the argument is often made that Hutchinson was innocent because the police would surely have checked him out - and that they clearly found nothing to arouse their suspicions.

Well, the same can be said for Cross, can't it? Does this indicate that the police perhaps didn't check people out so thoroughly as witnesses? Does it perhaps indicate that they viewed witnesses as witnesses and not as suspects?

[Lechmere]

I quite agree that Cross may have called himself Cross for legitimate reasons. The main one being he started working for Pickfords in about 1868 – before Thomas Cross died – so it is conceivable that he started work at Pickfords as Charles Cross. As he found Polly Nichols on the way to work he may have been in ‘work mode’.
Against this, he bumped into Mizen about 2 minutes after leaving Nichols’s body. In that time he was with Paul, no doubt talking to each other about what had just transpired. So he didn’t have much opportunity to think up a different name.
An argument against Thomas Cross effectively adopting him is that Charles was christened in 1859 in Stepney, as Charles Lechmere, when he would have been 9. This was a year after his mother had married Thomas Cross. They lived at Sion Square at that time – were Kosminski moved some years later.
I have noticed that Walter Dew called him Charles ----- in ‘I caught Crippen’. At least in the on-line version. Is this how the name appears in the actual book? If so I guess he couldn’t remember his surname. Clearly Charles Cross was an insignificant looking ‘everyman’ local nobody. Someone like that couldn’t have been the Ripper. He even turned up to the inquest scruffy and in his work clothes, all humble and innocent.

Sorry Sally, I should have made it clear – FrankO had suggested that maybe Charles used Cross as it sounded more English. I see Frank is from the Netherlands and the Lech is a branch of the Rhine that flows through the Netherlands and mere (for lake) in Dutch is meer – so perhaps he assumed it was a Dutch name. One theory is that the name originates from that source but the family are alleged to have come over with William the Conqueror.

[Lechmere]

Sally you make an interesting point in comparison to Hutchinson.
The difference is that at the time of the Nichols killing the police theory was that it was either a gang attack or a mad swivel eyed Jew who soon became Leather Apron in the popular mind.
Cross had a stable address and regular place of work. As pointed out in one of the Hutchinson threads, the police at that time discounted such people as potential suspects more or less immediately (provided there was no obvious reason to pursue them), as they had a prejudice against itinerants that were not in regular employment.

I believe the police did ’check people out’ and that is why I think they would have done this to Hutchinson and by then there were a lot more murders that he would need an alibi for – but I don’t want to get bogged down in Hutchinson yet again!

Cross appeared at the inquest on Monday – the murder was on the Friday, so he must have come forward to give a proper statement in between – unlike Paul who the police had to drag out of his bed in the middle of the night.

If he came forward and was overtly helpful, yet insignificant and humble, why would the police’s suspicion have been aroused? His story was never doubted (unlike Hutchinson). He didn’t delay in coming forward (unlike Hutchinson). He didn’t come up with a strange sounding story (unlike Hutchinson). Hutchinson invited suspicion which is why I think he must have been checked out before his involvement was dismissed – but Cross didn’t

Once his appearance at the inquest was done and dusted, the investigation moved into a different direction.

Of course we never find people who end up as being the killer being involved in the investigation at some stage. Do we?

If the police did look further and checked with Pickfords or at Doveton Street, then he had an excuse for using the Cross name. All he would need is an alibi for the night Tabram was killed, if indeed the police connected the two. Tabram of course had been found dead about twenty yards from Cross’s normal route to work at a similar time to Polly Nichols being found dead.

[Phil H]

Thanks Lechmere, you express many of my thoughts (and more) far better than I could, or have. I found your post really helpful.

Phil

[FrankO]

Sorry Sally, I should have made it clear – FrankO had suggested that maybe Charles used Cross as it sounded more English. I see Frank is from the Netherlands and the Lech is a branch of the Rhine that flows through the Netherlands and mere (for lake) in Dutch is meer – so perhaps he assumed it was a Dutch name. One theory is that the name originates from that source but the family are alleged to have come over with William the Conqueror.

Indeed, Lechmere, that was a fault on my part. Lechmere to me doesn't sound particularly English, but rather like a name that has its origins in The Netherlands or Germany.

All the best,
Frank

[Sally]

Lechmere

is spelled variously (sigh) in the historic record - census returns and such; as Leckmore, Leckmere, and Latchmore for example. Just an aside.

And Lechmere (yes, you!) I don't want to get bogged down in Honest Geo. either; but the comparison does invite itself here. I shall consider what you say

[FrankO]

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

I’d say that ‘misled’ is an overstatement, Phil. In what way did he mislead them? He apparently told them he worked at Messrs. Pickford and Co in Broad Street, which they could easily check. And again, many people back then & there used aliases. It doesn’t seem to have been a big deal.

So, yes, we do have a man who was found to be standing close to Nichols’ body (not ‘standing over the body’), and we do have somebody that gave another name than the name on his birth certificate. In that respect he’s interesting and would undoubtedly have been investigated if it had been a modern case, given the behavior of modern murderers. But, unfortunately, there’s nothing much to go on beyond these 2 facts.

Like Lechmere worded so well in his comparison between Cross and Hutchinson, Cross apparently didn’t give the slightest hint of being involved in Nichols’ murder. Just like, for instance, George Morris didn’t give any hint that he was involved in Eddowes’ murder. So, to me, it’s an interesting thought that Cross may have been Jack the Ripper, but, based on the little we know about him, it doesn’t go any furthe.

All the best,
Frank

[Phil H]

I’d say that ‘misled’ is an overstatement, Phil.

In part i was over-stating the case for effect. I seemed to be shouting without being heard. But precisely what is the distinction between misleading and lying where the police are concerned?

So, yes, we do have a man who was found to be standing close to Nichols’ body (not ‘standing over the body’),

We have only testimony to go on - Paul's and Cross/Lechmere's. So I am not really prepared to discuss fine distinctions. Lechmere was very close to a still warm body, he was looking at it - whether he had been close and moved away is, in my view, possible and plausible.

... unfortunately, there’s nothing much to go on beyond these 2 facts.

Not much more than we have on others such as Hutchinson, yet we spend a lot of time discussing HIM it seems.

Richardson, who denied seeing Chapman's body has had his testimony questioned - it was at the time - and there is a dissertation on whether he saw more than he claimed. I see Lechmere as perhaps warranting a similar attention, at least.

I agree, its difficult to take things further in the light of an apparent lack of contemporary interest - but I think there's more to him as a suspect than can be said of some other suspects about whom books have been written.

Phil

[Sally]

I agree, its difficult to take things further in the light of an apparent lack of contemporary interest - but I think there's more to him as a suspect than can be said of some other suspects about whom books have been written.

Like Joesph Barnett, for example?

Sorry Phil, couldn't resist!

Back to Nichols and the mysterious Lechmere...

[FrankO]

Not much more than we have on others such as Hutchinson, yet we spend a lot of time discussing HIM it seems.

Phil,

The difference between Cross & Hutchinson, like (poster) Lechmere proposed, is that, unlike Hutchinson, Cross came forward before the inquest, and didn’t present a strange sounding story - a story that raises more questions than it answers.

I agree, its difficult to take things further in the light of an apparent lack of contemporary interest - but I think there's more to him as a suspect than can be said of some other suspects about whom books have been written.

I agree with you there, Phil. It’s a pity for us that he wasn’t suspected at the time and that, therefore, we don’t have potentially more telling information about him.

All the best,
Frank

[Lechmere]

But, but, but, the questionable aspects of the Hutchinson story invite suspicion and surely (in my opinion) would have invited close attention from the police.

A sensible culprit would not have behaved in that manner I would submit – particularly a cool customer as I suspect the Ripper must have been. I would suggest that Cross’s behaviour is more as I would expect the Ripper to have behaved – tell as much of the truth as you can. Be as helpful as you can, avoid suspicion as much as possible.

We know the police questioned the butchers from Winthrop Street. We know Paul was dragged out of bed. We know that many residents and night watchmen in Bucks Row were questioned. We know the railway line was searched and the surrounding streets scrutinised for traces of blood. We have a fair idea how the police went about their investigation into Polly Nichols’s murder. It seems that Cross himself slipped through the net and wasn’t given any attention.

Why would he give a false or alternative name?

As I say, maybe he was known as Cross at Pickfords.
I don’t buy the suggestion that he wished to protect his family from press scrutiny as the Ripper scare hadn’t developed and he and Paul made it clear to Mizen that they were not sure if she was dead and if she was dead she may have ‘swooned’ or something similar. They did not think she had been cut up (unless of course Cross had done the cutting up, in which case he wasn’t going to let on).
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. Maybe he wanted distance between himself and the crimes so that he wasn’t mentioned in reports under his real name and his contemporaries wouldn’t immediately identify him with the witness. Maybe he didn’t want his wife to know that he was involved in case she twigged. She was illiterate by the way and couldn’t have read the press reports.

[Stephen Thomas]

What about the witness who heard 2 male voices around the time of the murder?

[Phil H]

Stephen,

My assumption has always been that the lady concerned, may have heard soething around the time of the murder, then dozed off without realising it, and woke up again to hear the whispered conversation between Cross/Lechmere and Paul.

I have never been drawn to a double-act as far as this or any other of the murders is concerned.

The lady, I forget her name, was not immediately adjacent to the murder site, as I recall - one of two cottages away. there were also railway noises at about the same time.

It's a very weak foundation to build anything on - weaker even than my efforts to implicate Lechmere/Cross.

Phil