POLLY NICHOLS: some questions

[The Grave Maurice]

I don't know. Cross's actions have always seemed, to me, to be those of an unsuspecting passerby who chanced upon an unfortunate (no pun intended) event.

If we start accusing everyone who happened to be in the area of a murder, our list of suspects is going to jump from 100+ to several thousands. Suspicion of guilt must involve more than proximity and odd behaviour. I'd behave oddly too if I found a body on my way to work.

[Hatchett]

Hi Everyone,

There is certainly no mention that I can find that Cross was ever investigated. If he was the killer his ploy in calling over Paul and then the two of them walking off to find a constable presumably worked.

If innocent his actions do appear odd. But it was early in the morning. He had found a murdered woman. And it was a strange area full of strange people.

As the Police were linking the first two murders, which are not included in the famous five, then if Cross had had an aliby for those then he would have presumably been discounted.

I wonder if his has been discounted as a serious suspect because he is so difficult to research.

Just a thought.

Best wishes.

[Supe]

Michael Connor wrote a third essay on Cross/Lechmere that appeared in Ripperologist 94 (August 2008) and he continues to champion him as JtR in other publications. A fictional look at Cross is available in Examiner 7 (April 2011).

That said, I quite agree with Monty that Cross/Lechmere's reported activities that morning argue against his being the Ripper. Still, as with the vast majority of suspects, he can't be ruled out absolutely, so . . .

Don.

[Monty]

Do you see where I'm going?

No Monty I don't - please speak plainly.

Phil

Oh, ok. I thought it was fairly clear.

A murderer just killed someone and instead of fleeing loiters at the spot until another person arrives on the scene, he then draws that persons attention to the victim, stating he feels she is dead then toddles off with that witness to inform a Constable of a woman\victim a few streets away.

Does that add up to you?

Monty

[lynn cates]

time and place

Hello Phil.

"At this remove in time, could we ever discover such a thing?"

I think it unlikely. So perhaps one can say of Cross, he was in the area where one killing occurred and at the right time. And, perhaps, he was in a second.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Do you see where I'm going?

No Monty I don't - please speak plainly.

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Those pesky Whitechapel Board of Work lamps Jeff.

Monty

Only way to find out is a walk up river in the dark to the pub...(next time your in Kent)

if we fall in and drown it means our eyes cant adapt....

if we come home drunk...who cares

[Monty]

Those pesky Whitechapel Board of Work lamps Jeff.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Monty

Trust your having a good weekend.

As you know I dont think Cross/Lechmere the ripper...however

One thing has always puzzled me about his evidence....

He didnt see any blood or notice the slit throat?

It was to dark he thought her a tarp?

Yet Poly's body was almost directly opposite a street light/Lap?

Just doesn't add up for me.

Yours Pirate

[Monty]

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

[Phil H]

... do we REALLY know that he went to work on the day Chapman was killed? If yes, do we know he took his usual route?

At this remove in time, could we ever discover such a thing? Could we of Joe Barnett, whom we know the police interviewed.

I don't think Lechmere/Cross is ever likely to be "provable" as a suspect.

My question is really why such a man has never been considered except on a handful of occasions (the dissertation etc), when the circumstantial "facts" present an amazing picture!

Phil

[lynn cates]

going to work

Hello Phil. I can see no a priori reason to rule him out as a slayer. A caveat, however:

"we have a man known to be about at the right time of day in two instances."

But do we REALLY know that he went to work on the day Chapman was killed? If yes, do we know he took his usual route?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Lynn and others,

I'm going to play a sort of Devil's advocate role now - in that I'm going to argue something of which I am not convinced for argument's sake:

Is it possible that the solution to this whole case has been staring us in the face since 1888?

A man is found standing over a murdered woman, who's body is still warm.

It is still dark enough that the body can apparently believeably be mistaken for a tarpaulin.

No one else is seen leaving the scene, yet the body is said to be "still warm".

There is no mention of Lechmere/Cross being searched or interrogated. No mention of him being asked if he was carrying a weapon. If there were any bloodstains, a dark jacket or coat might hide them at that stage of the morning - there is no mention of the police having looked too intently.

The next murder is on his same possible route to work, at about the right time of day (I increasingly tend to put the timing of Chapman's murder when it was still dark).

Eddowes was also killed not far off his usual haunts as a driver in Broad St.

This is so obvious a circumstantial case as I have seen in studying JtR. If we leave out Stride and MJK (both of which I - and I think others - now question as JtR killings) we have a man known to be about at the right time of day in two instances.

Maybe I am missing something important here - but I see no evidence from the surviving files that he was ever questioned as a suspect, investigated or cleared.

If today we spend columns of these boards considering Hutchinson as a possible "Jack" then why isn't Cross/Lechmere also being discussed/debated in the same way?

Just a thought - but see my caveat at the top of this post.

Phil

[Sally]

Yes..

But if he did have some blood on him - not necessarily so much - it could be explained easily enough by him in those circumstances, couldn't it?

As for his supplying the police with a false name; was he the only one? I think there are other possible instances - and other witnesses appear to have supplied the police with other false information - Mary Ann Connelly, for example, who seems to have lied about her address, and possibly her age (so who knows what else?)

Possibly the reason for these falsehoods is that those involved didn't want to be involved. Perhaps they had something to hide, maybe - but it needn't have had anything to do with murder.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, really. I think this is an interesting idea - I look forward to seeing how this thread develops.

[lynn cates]

missus est

Hello Phil. If I had to venture a guess about why Cross/Lechmere were dismissed, I should think it some combination of the following.

1. Not finding a murder weapon.

(Of course, it is not impossible that he could have concealed such.)

2. Lack of blood stains.

(Of course, it is barely possible that she could have been killed without a single drop being on the assailant. I suppose it also possible that the constables neglected to search him, or search him thoroughly.)

Cheers.
LC