POLLY NICHOLS: some questions

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[Phil H]

Thanks guys, this is exactly the sort of discussion I was hoping for when I started the thread.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Charles Cross is the perfect insignificant nobody – ignored by generations of Ripperologists. They routinely get even his false name, occupation, place of work and the circumstances of the ‘discovery’ wrong.
At random I just grabbed these off the shelf:

Jack the Ripper by Daniel Farson:
‘Her body was found at the entrance to an old stableyard by a carter called Cross (in the index William Cross)... When they saw the blood they ran for a policeman..."

Jack the Ripper – summing up and verdict by Colin Wilson and Robin Odell:
“... the body had already been discovered by a market porter on his way to work. George Cross had found the body in the semi-darkness while walking down Bucks Row at about 4 a.m."

[Phil H]

The early writers, and those in the centenary year who relied on them, routinely got Cross' name wrong.

I think it was probably Paul Begg (Uncensored Facts) who finally put the question to bed. I think that was the first time I saw a definitive line - I clearly recall the earlier confusion.

Phil

[Monty]

All new recruits to the Police force were examined by the Divisional Surgeon is establish if they were fit enough to conduct all their duties.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

Does that include eye tests? And were the police allowed to wear glasses?

best wishes

Phil

[The Grave Maurice]

And, if they had an initial eye test, were their eyes ever tested again once they'd joined the force?

[Monty]

As they (new recruits) had to be free from bodily complaint then yes, their eyes would have been tested.

I believe they were not allowed to wear glasses.

Policemen were examined by the Divisional Surgeon with regards any ailment they developed, including deteriorating eyesight.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

Thanks for this.. but I wonder if it is actually written down on any official police signing on paper that specifically an eye test was taken? Because many people can see perfectly ok under most circumstances and walk around without glasses, especially those who are only partially short or long sighted.

"Being free from bodily complaint" is a pretty non-specific and as people were not allowed to wear glasses, are we to presume that every policeman had perfect sight to qualify them to be on street duty?. Surely statistics on percentages of the population with less than perfect eyesight would count against this, would it not? For if one had to have perfect vision and in addition be of a certain stature, the limit of qualifiers would be pretty exclusive, I'd wager.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

I was merely stating that new recruits had to pass a physical. This because 'the new force' was required to have physically intimidating, strong men as opposed to the elderly gents of the old Watchmen style the force had. You will note that the majority of recruits stemmed from who worked in labouring and the Army. You had to be of the highest standard physically.

Now the exact make up of the physical is unknown to me however I'd find it odd if eye tests were not undertaken.

Of course sight standards would vary however they must have been sufficient for the recruit to have passed. The recruit would have had to have passed mental examinations and well as reading and writing exams.

Now make of that what you wish, the fact remains not everyone met the requirements, so there were standards.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

Again, thanks for this. Do you happen to know when there was any written handbook of "rules" of passing the qualification exam introduced.. i.e. a list of different specific tests required to be taken?

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

I've always felt it wasn't what was seen but what was heard in Buck's Row that's importance. Cross tells us how long he stood there before he heard Robert Paul approaching. This gives us an idea of how long Jack had to skidaddle once he heard Cross approaching. Jack was probably in the street the entire time, just out of sight.

As for witness age, I was surprised to find out Albert Cadosch was in his 20s. I'd always imagined an older man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott