Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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'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

[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.

[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