POLLY NICHOLS: some questions

[Lechmere]

I don’t think there is a legal impediment to call yourself by any name.
It is a question of why you would chose on that occasion to call yourself by another name, when there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he ever used it by his own choice in his entire life, and when he told Mizen (he seems to have done the talking rather than Paul) that Nichols may be drunk or just fainted (and that is evidently why Mizen didn’t rush off but continued knocking up). There was no hue and cry at that time about a Whitechapel murderer, to protect his family from.
He managed to avoid his real name coming out at the inquest also and seems to have successfully avoided his family (or at least his wife) finding out about his involvement – which is rather the point. He turned up at the inquest in his work clothes, yet he will not have been able to go to work that day.
He didn’t go in search of the nearest bobby, he bumped into one while walking to work with Paul after abandoning the body – and after quite possibly persuading Paul that there was nothing they could do but hurry on to work... as he claimed he was late for work, yet accompanied Paul past Paul’s’ workplace (a few yards further on from the next – Chapman -murder scene) instead of going the most direct route to his own workplace... which would have taken him past the Tabram murder scene.
Oh and after he left Paul he will have passed the future Kelly murder scene.
Cross said he only got halfway across the road before stopping. Paul is less sure. How do we know that he didn’t retreat from the corpse before Paul noticed him in the dark?
As for the blood, there was very little found at the crime scene. We don’t know that whoever did kill Nichols (or any of the others for that matter) would have been covered in blood to a noticeable degree.

[The Grave Maurice]

Lechmere,

As Sally points out, Cross was legally entitled to call himself by either name. I rather like her suggestion that he used the name Cross because he wanted to protect the privacy of his family. Even if he wasn't sure that Nichols was dead, he would have known there was likely to be an inquiry of some sort. In any event, as others have said, he wasn't found standing over the body, he had no blood on his hands or elsewhere, and he went in search of the nearest bobbie with a companion as quickly as possible. IMO, he's a non-starter as a suspect.

[Lechmere]

A few things
Cross and Paul told Mizen they weren’t sure whether Nichols was dead – so why the need for a false name?
There are different versions of when he left home and when he found Nichols – but the smallest time frame still leaves him with about three minutes to spare and the longest 18.
All the other people who found a Ripper victim (and you can include Tabram, Coles, McKenzie and Pinchin Street) were either policemen or a passer-by who immediately alerted a policeman. Cross and Paul went to work and bumped into a policeman on the way.
There is some ambiguity from Paul as to whether Cross was over the corpse or in the middle of the road. It is certain that by the time Paul passed Cross, Cross had retreated from the corpse.
They claimed they couldn’t tell that Nichols throat was cut. It must have been very dark on that side of the road.
The only time Cross was called Cross was in the 1861 census when he was about 12 and not in a position to chose.
Cross says he noticed Paul at just 40 yards. From the same place PC Neil spotted PC Thain at nearly 200 yards – he would have probably been silhouetted walking past the Brady Street end of Bucks Row. Maybe Neil had very good eyesight compared to Cross.
When they met Mizen by his own account Cross didn’t even know that Nichols was dead, still less the victim of a slasher killer. So he was protecting his family from what exactly?

[The Grave Maurice]

Yep, as Phil says, Pirate, age isn't the crucial factor here. Lack of visual acuity can strike at any age. My wife, for example, needed corrective lenses when she was seven years old. The interesting point here, as Supe has reminded us, is that we shouldn't always put a lot of faith in what witnesses said they saw.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

Age isn't the question here. Eyesight is.. witnesses or policemen. I would doubt that of the witnesses and policemen to happenings, people they have seen, suspects etc all mentioned in this... that ALL of them had perfect eyesight. In relative gloomy light/darkness/consequence of light rain/rain. That combination raises the question of the ability of any one of these people, policemen included, to have actually seen anything as described.. colours in the dark included (there are also people who are colour blind in this world), those who cannot distinguish shading very well, those who see far better in daylight than darkness, and most of these things happened in a relatively short space of time, not to mention vastly differing distances in some cases. This combination therefore must bring into question veracity, without us knowing, of the testimony based on vision alone.
All this is before we start to look at impaired hearing.

All this must be taken into account. What weight is put upon it, is speculatory however. I can only conclude that a question can be raised by these factors. We do not know for certain any impediment, but cannot assume there weren't any either. We can generalise on the average amount of people having less than perfect eyesight in Victorian times. Poverty would also be a factor, of who could afford glasses. Were policemen allowed to wear spectacles on duty outside on their beat? Age, as you mention may take a part in this, but in consideration, poor eyesight can start at a young age. Look how many children are short-sighted at school and wear glasses and contact lenses.

This is merely observing a problem. I make no statement about it as being factual either way.

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

True. But quite a few of the witnesses weren't that old.

Schwartz was only 22.

I'd be surprised if the average age made 25....

Pirate

[The Grave Maurice]

...I first made the point in an article, "Last Seen Wearing," that appeared in Ripper Notes 23 (July 2005).

Don,

Actually, now that you mention it, I own the issue and read the article. Unfortunately, my eyesight isn't the only thing that's going.

Phil,

You're right: the point applies equally to the cops.

[Phil Carter]

... I don't recall having been made before: you never hear of anyone in the East End, at the relevant time, wearing glasses....

Hello GM,

It also brings into question the vision of the police officers on the beat at the time in identifying others correctly. Although desk/office duty policemen are known to have worn glasses, have you ever seen an East End policeman on the beat outside wearing glasses? There were no eyetests, I believe, at the time? Although sight is ok in the daytime without glasses, if the vision is at all impaired, then at night it becomes decidedly more difficult to be precise, especially given the gloom of the East End streets.

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Grave One,

Very astute point, Donald, and one that I don't recall having been made before

Thank you very much for the comment. Though, to be honest, I first made the point in an article, "Last Seen Wearing," that appeared in Ripper Notes 23 (July 2005). In fact, that article is truly distinguished because it is graced with a series of original illustrations by Glenn Andersson that he kindly provided.

Don.

[The Grave Maurice]

Indeed, in a society like the East End recourse to artificial visual enhancement was likely not great. Enough is not made of this, I fear, when weighing the statements of supposed witnesses

Very astute point, Donald, and one that I don't recall having been made before: you never hear of anyone in the East End, at the relevant time, wearing glasses. Personally, without mine, I couldn't have seen clearly for any distance after I was about 25.

Well spotted, so to speak.

[Monty]

Cross was not found over Nichols. As Jon rightly points out, he was first seen away from the body.

The snippet under witnesses has Cross/Lechmere going over to her for "closer inspection" and THEN calling to Paul.

I don't disagree at all. I would just point out that he was still encountered closer to the newly killed corpse of a "Ripper" victim than anyone else!

Also we are dealing with such slender details here, so much depends on what was seen and how it was perceived, then given in evidence.

It is the overall picture presented that interests me at this stage. though I don't deny that the devil is likely to be in the detail.

Phil

The same arguement can therefore be made for Davis, Diemshutz (or Diemshitz Thomas), Watkins, Bowyer, Thomps etc etc etc.

Monty

[Sally]

Charles Allen Lechmere

Discussion seems to have centred on the "should Lechmere be more of a suspect" question, and I hope this will continue.

With the present discussion in mind, I had a quick look about for the mysterious Charles Cross - this is a brief account so as not to bore you all with endless genealogical details!:

Charles Allen Lechmere

Was born in about 1850 in the parish of St Anne, Soho. He was the second child of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa Lechmere (nee. Roulson); both of whom appear to have originated from the Hereford area. They married in 1846 (BMD Hereford v26 p339). Maria Lechmere appeared in the 1851 Census on her own with Charles and sister Emily (b.1847) at 78 Blue School Lane, Hereford, working as a Straw Bonnet Maker. Although she is listed as married, it is unclear whether her husband had deserted her, or had died.

Whatever the case, Maria’s was evidently able to enter into a second marriage, to Thomas Cross (b.1825) early in 1858. The Cross family were living at 13 Thomas Street, St George in the East in 1861; Thomas Cross is listed as a police constable and Charles, and his sister Emily, are both listed with the surname Cross at this time.

At some point between 1861 and 1872; Thomas Cross died; because in 1872, Maria married for a third time, to widower Joseph Forsdike. Her son Charles, by this time married himself, was a witness to the marriage.

What is interesting, is this:

On this occasion; and also on his own marriage certificate, and in the 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1911 census (I haven‘t located him in the 1901 census); Charles ‘Cross’ used the name Lechmere. It is Lechmere, not Cross that appears on his death certificate. In fact, Lechmere appears to have been his ‘usual’ name - Cross something of an anomaly.

It is not surprising, therefore, that he initially gave the name Lechmere to the police subsequent to witnessing the corpse of Mary Ann Nichols. Lechmere was not a false name - it was his name, about which there appears to have been no mystery or doubt at the time.

So why did he use the name Cross? Evidently he had taken the name when his mother married Thomas Cross in 1858; exactly why he did so again 30 years later is open to speculation. Evidently he revised his initial decision to use the name Lechmere on that occasion. Perhaps he was also known as Cross. Another possibility is that he wanted to shield his family from any publicity at the time. In 1888, he and his wife Elizabeth, who married in 1870, had 6 children at home. It is also apparent that he had relatives living in London. It would be quite understandable if he wanted to protect the privacy of his family.

In any event, Charles Cross did not lie to the police about his name - one less reason for suspicion?

Oh yes, additionally - in 1891 Charles Lechmere and his family were living at 22 Doveton Street, Mile End. Charles was still working as a carman. He was not, therefore, the Charles Crass living in the Victoria Home identified by Michael Connor in his dissertation.

[Phil H]

Discussion seems to have centred on the "should Lechmere be more of a suspect" question, and I hope this will continue.

But I asked 2 questions in the OP - the first was whether the A-Z had got it wrong in relation to Emily Holland's testimony. Any thoughts on that?

Phil

[The Bounder]

Hi Phil,

So let me get this straight.

Cross kills Nichols.

Cross then hears Paul approaching and hides in the shadows.

Cross then calls Paul over to the body.

Cross states to Paul he believes the woman to be dead, he himself.

Paul states he detects life.

They both go and notify a Policeman together.


Do you see where I'm going?

Monty

Ah, but possibly it was all a brilliant ruse from a guilty party who was convinced he was about to be discovered so preempted his own discovery and deflected blame by involving the police!

[Phil H]

Cross was not found over Nichols. As Jon rightly points out, he was first seen away from the body.

The snippet under witnesses has Cross/Lechmere going over to her for "closer inspection" and THEN calling to Paul.

I don't disagree at all. I would just point out that he was still encountered closer to the newly killed corpse of a "Ripper" victim than anyone else!

Also we are dealing with such slender details here, so much depends on what was seen and how it was perceived, then given in evidence.

It is the overall picture presented that interests me at this stage. though I don't deny that the devil is likely to be in the detail.

Phil