Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Monty]

Cross inquest testimony states that he had "walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."

Again this is what Lechmere/Cross SAID - but we know he was misrepresenting his identity to the inquest - why not other things? Sorry but logically a lack of truthfulness calls into question ALL that person says? If Lechmere /Cross had been caught out on the issue of his name - do you not think the Coroner and jury might have had something to say about his reliability?

And Paul backs his statement, saying he also saw first Cross in the middle of the road, not over the body, which is misleading.

The use of a differing name is hardly damning, it does not directly smack of deciet,

I'm afraid i cannot follow you there - it's ridiculous. He LIED IN A COURT OF LAW! Whatever reasons you can think of for him having done it - HE LIED!

Now how would a barrister have dealt with that in a trial? I think Lechmere/Cross would have been utterly discredited as a witness, if not charged with perjury or contempt. I can think of other valid and reasonable reasons why he used the name of Cross.

I repeat, I do NOT believe Lechmere/Cross guilty of anything. I respect testimony as a sound basis for discussion. But we still have to examine it, cross-question it, analyse it, understand it - otherwise we get nowhere

Sorry, can you cite the evidence that proved he lied? There is a possibility of a valid reason, as of this moment, of which we are unaware of.

Cross wasnt on trial, it was an inquest.

Monty

[Colin Roberts]

I'm sure that there are any number of innocuous - and, perhaps somewhat understandable - reasons that Lechmere might have chosen for identifying himself as 'Cross', during the course of the investigation, into the death of Mary Ann Nichols.

But, there is never a "valid" or "reasonable" reason for identifying one's self, by an undocumented surname.

Awkward!

Let's try ...

I'm sure that there are any number of innocuous reasons that Lechmere might have had, for choosing to identify himself as 'Cross', during the course of the investigation, into the death of Mary Ann Nichols.

But, there cannot be a "valid" or "reasonable" reason for choosing to identify one's self, by an undocumented surname.

The only thing that I can think of is that he did not want his true name out in public for some reason.

Which, of course, is entirely possible!

Or perhaps he thought Cross sounded better than "swamp of leeches".

I would sincerely hope that the generally accepted pronunciation of his name was lek-mir.

The sound of lech-mir makes my skin crawl up the back of my neck.

I think that I would go by some other name, as well, if people were inclined to pronounce my name lech-mir, as opposed to lek-mir.

[Abby Normal]

It doesn't smack of deceit, Neil, because it is deceit!

I'm sure that there are any number of innocuous - and, perhaps somewhat understandable - reasons that Lechmere might have chosen for identifying himself as 'Cross', during the course of the investigation, into the death of Mary Ann Nichols.

But, there is never a "valid" or "reasonable" reason for identifying one's self, by an undocumented surname.

~~~

Those that are intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should accept the fact, that at this juncture, they are 'spinning their wheels', as the field of 'Ripperology', unfortunately, is not interested.

That the entire field should be so intrigued, can be argued, 'until the cows come home'.

They should stop blowing smoke, and start looking further into that, which can be gleaned, regarding Charles Allen Lechmere, aka 'Charles Allen Cross'.

~~~

Those that cling to the name 'Cross', and, that are not intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should ask themselves whether they are, perhaps, being complacent!

Hi Colin
I agree. The only thing that I can think of is that he did not want his true name out in public for some reason.

Or perhaps he thought Cross sounded better than "swamp of leeches".

[Colin Roberts]

The use of a differing name is hardly damning, it does not directly smack of deciet, I can think of other valid and reasonable reasons why he used the name of Cross.

It doesn't smack of deceit, Neil, because it is deceit!

I'm sure that there are any number of innocuous - and, perhaps somewhat understandable - reasons that Lechmere might have chosen for identifying himself as 'Cross', during the course of the investigation, into the death of Mary Ann Nichols.

But, there is never a "valid" or "reasonable" reason for identifying one's self, by an undocumented surname.

~~~

Those that are intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should accept the fact, that at this juncture, they are 'spinning their wheels', as the field of 'Ripperology', unfortunately, is not interested.

That the entire field should be so intrigued, can be argued, 'until the cows come home'.

They should stop blowing smoke, and start looking further into that, which can be gleaned, regarding Charles Allen Lechmere, aka 'Charles Allen Cross'.

~~~

Those that cling to the name 'Cross', and, that are not intrigued, by Lechmere's seemingly bizarre behavior, should ask themselves whether they are, perhaps, being complacent!

[Phil H]

Whilst this may smack of semantics its is a true assessment and does not mislead.

It is also perceptual and subjective - you may say near, I may say over and neither of us need be wrong.

Pauls inquest testimony. He clearly states that "as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

I have said, I do not question the evidence. But all this shows is - at best - what PAUL believed, or recalled. His judgement on near/over is as subjective as ours - further it depends on his recall. It is testimony and must be accepted as such - but I am entitled to question it.

Cross inquest testimony states that he had "walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."

Again this is what Lechmere/Cross SAID - but we know he was misrepresenting his identity to the inquest - why not other things? Sorry but logically a lack of truthfulness calls into question ALL that person says? If Lechmere /Cross had been caught out on the issue of his name - do you not think the Coroner and jury might have had something to say about his reliability?

In other words Paul saw Cross, cross moved toward him, Paul moved towards the pavement to avoid him and it was at this stage Cross engaed him in conversation and pointed out Nichols.

If you like. I'll humour you - but I think you are placing much reliance on words spoken that may not tell all.

The use of a differing name is hardly damning, it does not directly smack of deciet,

I'm afraid i cannot follow you there - it's ridiculous. He LIED IN A COURT OF LAW! Whatever reasons you can think of for him having done it - HE LIED!

Now how would a barrister have dealt with that in a trial? I think Lechmere/Cross would have been utterly discredited as a witness, if not charged with perjury or contempt. I can think of other valid and reasonable reasons why he used the name of Cross.

I repeat, I do NOT believe Lechmere/Cross guilty of anything. I respect testimony as a sound basis for discussion. But we still have to examine it, cross-question it, analyse it, understand it - otherwise we get nowhere.

Phil

[Monty]

I inserted the word "practically" because certain posters seemed to quibble about the word "over" in earlier discussions. Given the width of Bucks Row (which I know from standing there) the difference between over and near is a question of feet and inches. I'd say "over" without qualm.

Over suggests Cross was standing above the body, and therefore implies direct connection to it. I have also stood in Bucks Row many a time and can assure you halfway across the street is not over the body. However, granted, it is in close proximity. Whilst this may smack of semantics its is a true assessment and does not mislead.

Paul saw Cross first and hadnt noted the body until the Carman had pointed it out to him.

How do you know, Monty?

Pauls inquest testimony. He clearly states that "as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

Cross inquest testimony states that he had "walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."


In other words Paul saw Cross, cross moved toward him, Paul moved towards the pavement to avoid him and it was at this stage Cross engaed him in conversation and pointed out Nichols.

Neither contradict the other on this.

Oh, we know what was said, but my speculations in my post earlier today were hypothetical and looking at a slightly different scenario. I neither believe Lechmere/Cross was the Ripper, not question the evidence, but the discussion was why he acted/might have acted as he did.

Phil

Well, how did he act? I mean read his testimony and others associated with him. The use of a differing name is hardly damning, it does not directly smack of deciet, I can think of other valid and reasonable reasons why he used the name of Cross.

The use of an open mind works both ways.

Monty

[Observer]

Hi all

The Jewish Shabbat does not start at midnight Friday, nor does it end midnight Saturday. Shabbat is observed from a few minutes before sunset on Friday evening until a few minutes after the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday night. The exact times, therefore, differ from week to week and from place to place, depending on the time of sunset at each location.

Regards

Observer

[Phil H]

I don't think we know for a certainty that everyone who found a WC murder victim raised the alarm . . . I think it is possible Annie Chapman was found, then left for someone else to "discover".

I agree, curious. good point.

phil

[curious]

They then together hardly lingered at the scene more than a minimal time and didn't immediately raise the alarm, unlike everyone else who found a Whitechapel murder victim.

I don't think we know for a certainty that everyone who found a WC murder victim raised the alarm . . . I think it is possible Annie Chapman was found, then left for someone else to "discover".

curious

[Phil H]

The only man practically? Heh, ok, practically.

I inserted the word "practically" because certain posters seemed to quibble about the word "over" in earlier discussions. Given the width of Bucks Row (which I know from standing there) the difference between over and near is a question of feet and inches. I'd say "over" without qualm.

Paul saw Cross first and hadnt noted the body until the Carman had pointed it out to him.

How do you know, Monty?

Oh, we know what was said, but my speculations in my post earlier today were hypothetical and looking at a slightly different scenario. I neither believe Lechmere/Cross was the Ripper, not question the evidence, but the discussion was why he acted/might have acted as he did.

Phil

[Monty]

The only man practically? Heh, ok, practically.

I need to apologise for my misleading post. Cross states he was in the middle of the road (not over the body, infact dechipering Cross and Pauls statements it seems they both went to the body, for the first time, together), about 40 yards (120 odd foot I believe) away from Paul when he noted him, and Paul confirms this. Whilst the distance is not canyon sized its sufficient enough for Cross to flee, assuming he was physically able to.

Paul saw Cross first and hadnt noted the body until the Carman had pointed it out to him.

Re Mizen, inquest reports states that Cross said to Mizen "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."

There is no ambiguity here, Cross clearly states his opinion.

Monty

[Phil H]

But Monty - the rationale is mere speculation, though I think some of us have been trying to argue that it should not be so lightly dismissed.

The fact remains that Lechmere/Cross was the only man discovered (practically) standing over the body of a JtR victim and he DID give a "misleading" name (i.e. not the one he usually used by all accounts). That should at least be "of interest". Neither of those points are true of any other person in the whole case.

Further than that I will not go - we have neither evidence, nor much likelihood of further research.

On one point though (just assuming for argument that Lechmere/Cross was the killer), Lechmere/Cross could not know what Paul had seen, or would see. IF Paul had seen him standing in the road close to where the body lay, and then discovered the body, Paul might have put two and two together. So Paul could either walk away or hasten away (run?) the latter might betray his guilt, the former allow him to be caught. And further, given his familiarity with his route to work, he may have known that a policeman was on his beat just ahead. What if, hastening away, he ran into the copper? What if Paul started to shout "Murder!" and raise a hue and cry? What if the cop heard paul?

Perhaps better to stay still and brazen it out?

Pure speculation, worth nothing, nut not impossible, I would argue - and we have reason to believe that "Jack" was pretty cool and a risk taker.

But no, we have no way of making Lechmere/Cross a suspect - though I repeat my comment from earlier posts - wouldn't it be amusing if the man seen standing by the "first" body ever proved to have been "Jack" all along - having hidden in plain sight because we were all (then and now) too dense to see it!!

Phil

[Monty]

Paul approached from Brady Street. This was a fair distance from the scene. As Cross noted Pauls approach he, rather than fleeing, hid in a doorway until Paul approached closer. Ergo he lingered until Paul arrived on the scene, as opposed to fleeing.

I prefer to be led by the inquest reports, which clearly state that Cross had told Mizen the was a woman dead or drunk in Bucks Row.

No, he didn't have to say anything at all. He could have pleaded ignorance. He had nothing to gain, if he was the killer, by pointing out a possible death.

To me the theory is far fetched.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Cross approached Paul but, if he did it, it could be argued that he had little option when virtually caught in the act.

They then together hardly lingered at the scene more than a minimal time and didn't immediately raise the alarm, unlike everyone else who found a Whitechapel murder victim.

It is unclear who said what as the press reports are contradictory, but it is clear they didn't categorically tell Mizen that Polly was dead. If Cross did it, then he had to say things that would not arose Paul's suspicions. Being vague as to Polly's status would achieve that end.

[Monty]

Monty
“If Jack was Jewish, Saturday was the Sabbath.”
Does this imply – to you – that he couldn’t have been Jewish?
If he was Christian then Sunday was his Sabbath.
Murders took place on Sunday morning and Saturday morning so it doesn’t get us very far – unless he was an atheist! Or unless his religion didn’t affect his murderous intent, or when he worked.

Did Cross have much choice about telling Mizen about Nichols’s body when he bumped into him while having Paul in tow? I would suggest not. And remember he didn’t make it clear to Mizen that she was dead.

It implies, to me, that he wasn't a devout Jew. However it was more a reference to work.

Cross hung around for Paul, and presented himself to him. He didn't have to linger at the scene.

Cross also stated to Paul that he felt the woman was dead and, at inquest, said he told Mizen she was either dead or drunk, taking on board Pauls belief.

If Cross wanted to bide time, why mention a possibility of death.

Monty