Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Lechmere]

In isolation each of the grounds for suspicion with respect to cross can have another, innocent explanation. However the thing about it us there are numerous grounds for suspicion which have been raised here. I think it is the combination which makes the case compelling.

[Robert]

I'm not sure that I see anything callous in the men walking on to find a policeman. Perhaps they could have run. Neither of them was trained in first aid, so the only thing they might have done instead was to run to the hospital. But finding a policeman was almost as good.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"I'm not sure that I see anything callous in the men walking on to find a policeman. Perhaps they could have run. Neither of them was trained in first aid, so the only thing they might have done instead was to run to the hospital. But finding a policeman was almost as good."

I think what Lechmere said in his post may apply here, Robert - taken in isolation, the grounds for suspicion can all be interpreted as completely innocent. But when the elements are piled up, they become a lot more compelling.

Finding a policeman would perhaps not have been the worst they could do. But if that was their top priority, they would have doubled their chances of finding one by splitting up, perhaps sending one of the men out on Whitechapel Street. There was also the possibility to call on some of the people living a mere steps away from the murder place, and perhaps get directions to find a doctor.
To some extent, what measures you take will of course depend on your assessment of the state of the person you find in the street. Many people will leave drunkards to their destinies for understandable reasons. But if you suspect imminent death? Then, yes, they could have run, at the very least.

But just like you say, Robert, I don´t find anything necessarily callous in what they did. Maybe they simply did not know any better. And the potential interest lies in the combination of all details, as outlined by Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Leading the thread back to it´s origins, there is another thing that may be of interest.
Cross/Lechmere was the person who instigated the "examination" of Nichols. He was thus the part taking some sort of responsibility for her, at least on the surface of things. He felt her hands and Paul felt her chest and stated that he thought that he could feel a slight sign of life. Therefore, he suggested that the two should prop her up.
This, however, Cross/Lechmere refused to do.
Why would he do that?

The reason could be a very mundane one, of course - he may have been afraid to have her vomiting over him or something such.

Likewise it applies that if he knew that her head was hanging on by the spine only, more or less, then this would all become obvious as they tried to lift her up. So would the pool of blood underneath her neck. And if Charles Lechmere had decided to try and hide her state by pulling her dress down over the abdominal wounds, then arguably he would not be interested in the sort of give-away a propping up would create. It could have Paul yelling for the police at the top of his voice, and if Cross had a knife on him, the chance of getting searched at the spot would be very obvious.

So what do you think? Why would a man that interested in the condition of a woman lying in the street, not assist in propping her up in order to perhaps bring her around again?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Well Fish, I am not skilled in first aid, but I do seem to remember that the general advice is not to move people, in case of aggravating a spinal injury or some other injury. Placing a coat or cushion under the head seems about the limit, unless you know what you're doing. Whether such advice was around in 1888, I can't say.

[Fisherman]

Robert!

There is an indication in the Daily News, reporting from the inquest. According to it, Cross/Lechmere replied to Pauls suggestion by saying "I´m not going to touch her!"

...which he had of course already done, felling her hands and face.

At any rate, if Cross/Lechmere had been aware of the risks involved with spinal injuries and such, I think that he would have perhaps have said that this was what stopped him from helping out. But just saying "I´m not going to touch her" implicates something else (and, as usual, implications are what we have ...). Other sources simply says he refused or denied to prop her up, more pointing to a wish to stay away from the propping than to any medical insights.
Moreover, I don´t know to what degree these medical insights were common knowledge back in 1888. I know that they were NOT common knowledge when I grew up ... but that was a long time ago, of course ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Dealing with Lechmere’s observations then: there is nothing unusual or suspicious about the fact that Nichols' body was tampered with by those who found her. The “Whitechapel murders” were not yet in full swing in terms of public knowledge that an individual was killing off prostitutes as part of a series, and Cross naturally investigated the body in the darkness to check for any signs of life. His first impression that she had been outraged and “gone off in a soon” seems perfectly plausible to me. I don’t know about anyone else.

It shouldn’t be considered remotely unusual that Cross didn’t check for abdominal injuries on Nichols’ supine form in the dark. Neil didn’t either. The two carmen were uncertain that Nichols was dead, but did not simply head on their “merry way to work”. Their immediate priority was to alert a constable, and they knew from extensive experience of walking that route that they were likely to find one before reaching work, courtesy of the beat system, which can hardly have escaped their attention. Given the severity of the incident, it is not surprising that the two carmen stuck together when seeking out a constable. It meant they were in a position to support each other’s accounts and so create a convincing impression to any policeman they encountered. This would more than account for both Cross’s accompaniment of Paul and his longer route to work.

We know that some of the later victims were also found by members of the public, rather than policeman, but in those cases, there was no question that the victim concerned was both dead and savagely mutilated. Hardly surprising then that John Davies’ reaction upon seeing the butchered remains of Annie Chapman (in much lighter conditions and with intestines over her shoulder) was to raise the alarm immediately. If it is to be considered suspicious that Cross failed to do this in darker conditions and with no certainty that the woman was dead, the same suspicions must logically be levelled at Robert Paul, as Harry points out.

His presence at the crime scene is legitimized by the fact that he was walking en-route to work. Serial killers rarely, if ever, commit mutilation murders when walking to work for the simple reason that they are due at that place of work shortly afterwards, and for most serial killers, the immediate post-crime phase involves cleaning up whatever needs to be cleaned up and stashing away (or disposing of) potentially incriminating evidence. Thus, in my opinion, the fact that he was on the way to work is not only unsuspicious; it’s a point that militates against his suggested culpability.

Equally unsuspicious is Cross’s other name of Lechmere. Serial killers will often use aliases, but we’re not talking about an alias here. Lechmere and Cross were the actual surnames of his father and stepfather respectively.

Those who champion Cross as a suspect tend to overlook the fact that someone was bound to find Nichols’ body eventually, and the chances of that discoverer being a policeman or someone on their way to work were always going to be very high indeed. So I have to ask: what is so “suspicious” about the inevitability of someone like Cross finding the body? What is so suspicious about something that was likely to happen...actually happening? And how might the circumstance of a man on his way to work finding Nicholls body have played out any less “suspiciously” than what occurred in reality with Cross? Means, opportunity and “could haves” are not the same as having any good reason to treat Cross with suspicion.

I may have misunderstood you, Lechmere - in which case, please accept my apologies in advance - but you seem to be suggesting that Robert Paul, as the second person to discover the body, was interrogated by the police as a suspect, but Charles Cross, as the first person to discover the body, was never once considered in the capacity of a suspect. I’m afraid that strikes me as unlikely to the point of being impossible to accept.

I would be very interested to hear of any additional biographical details or “connections” that might link Cross to the areas around other crime scenes, but I would respectfully submit that it would be best to provide the evidence and accompanying sources before anyone uses these to argue in favour of him being Jack the Ripper. Somewhat disturbingly, a few of the contributors to this thread seem inappropriately enthusiastic about Cross’s supposed good ripper candidature before they’ve even seen any evidence at all, and I’ll bet some of them know nothing of Michael Connor’s article to boot, but since your own standards are no doubt more exacting, you’ll recognise the need to provide your research before the long-winded arguing starts.

Don’t get be wrong; I don’t mean to dismiss Cross as a possible suspect. The idea is not totally unreasonable and represents a step, to my mind, in the right general direction. If someone were to tell me that the killer was either Tumblety, Druitt or Cross, I'd be amazed, but I would pick the last mentioned with little hesitation. You can do a lot worse than Cross as suspects go, but you can certainly do better.

All the best,
Ben

Very, Very well said Ben.
I would just add that using his other name Cross, which seems to be the main red flag for the Lechmerians, is not really suspicious considering its his step dads name who was a police man and this is a police matter and/or he wanted to sheild himself and his family.

[Robert]

Hi Fish

"I'm not going to touch her" might be a self-preservation thing. If a woman had been outraged, such a woman regaining consciousness (and who had been drinking) might fly into a series of accusations against her helper. It can't have been unknown for good Samaritans helping women in distress to have been accused of an offence, if the disorientated women weren't sure exactly what had happened?

Abby - Lechmerians? Makes Fish and Lechmere sound like prehistoric monsters from Dr Who! When did you say you were hatched - um - born, Fish?

[Abby Normal]

Sally:

"Ah. And there I was thinking this was a serious discussion.
Well in that case, anybody can be a suspect.
How utterly ridiculous."

It´s a sad thing, Sally, that you cannot conduct a discussion like this without trying to be scornful where no scorn is called for.

What did you expect this thread would produce? A signed confession from Lechmere? Is that what it would take for you to accept the validity of him as a suspect?

Then I´m afraid you are going to have to live with a lot of "utterly ridiculous" suggestions in the future too - all of them, to be more exact.

If this is all you can contribute, I think it would be a lot better if you did not contribute at all. As you may have noticed, the rest of the posters out here are discussing Lechmere´s viability in a much more productive way. It would be a lot nicer if you could see your way through to doing so too. After all, Lechmere provides the only case where we have the type of elements at hand that any police corps, looking for a serialist, would take an interest in; a proven, useful geographical correlation, a proven time connection, a proven changed identity and a proven attendance at a murder site when the murder was committed.

Now, I know from experience that you favour Hutchinson as the killer, Sally. Please make the comparison here.
How many murder victims can we tie geographically to Hutchinson?
How sure are we that he used an alias, given that there is a George Hutchinson whose signature matches the witnesses´, according to a document examiner.
How certain are we that Hutchinson was ever closer to Mary Kelly the night she died than ten yards? If, that is, he was even there on that night.

Please observe, Sally, that your preferred candidate makes a considerably less viable case in all of these three important parameters. If we are to call the Lechmere bid "utterly ridiculous" - then what shall we call the Hutchinson bid?

If you have something useful to contribute on this thread, I would be happy to hear it. If you remain convinced that the suggestion is "utterly ridiculous", well then rest assured that your view has been taken to the protocol, and there is no further call for you to repeat yourself.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Since you brought up Hutch, it made me think of a couple of similiarities with Lech.

Some of the anti-hutchs have been very vocal in the past in pointing out certain aspects of the hutch case (you know who you are) that they say diminish his candidacy for the ripper that also apply to Lech.

Namely:
1. Hutch/toppy apparently being a normal family man. so was Lech. in fact more so, as he was married with family at the time of the murders while hutch was single and married later.

2. The argument the police must have checked Hutch out as a suspect, eventhough there is no evidence they did, and cleared him. This also has to apply then exactly to Lech. They must have checked him out also as a suspect and cleared him.

So, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Anyone who thinks the above diminished Hutch's candidacy MUST also admit these diminish Lech's.
Fair enough?

[Robert]

Incipit tragoedia.

[Abby Normal]

Very, Very well said Ben.
I would just add that using his other name Cross, which seems to be the main red flag for the Lechmerians, is not really suspicious considering its his step dads name who was a police man and this is a police matter and/or he wanted to sheild himself and his family.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that when i said well done to Bens post i also agree wholeheartily with this statement from Ben:

Don’t get be wrong; I don’t mean to dismiss Cross as a possible suspect. The idea is not totally unreasonable and represents a step, to my mind, in the right general direction. If someone were to tell me that the killer was either Tumblety, Druitt or Cross, I'd be amazed, but I would pick the last mentioned with little hesitation. You can do a lot worse than Cross as suspects go, but you can certainly do better.

I agree, he is not totally out of the question.

Recently I have been leaning more to the idea that too much emphasis is placed on "Outside" suspects like Bens above. Suspects who have no known connection to the victims but were only suspected because they fit the profile or have nebulous circumstantial evidence. I think the key to this will be looking more closely at "Inside" suspects-people who have a known connection/closeness to the victims-people like Blotchy, Flemming, hutch and yes Lechmere. Although I have to admit, eventhough Lech is an inside suspect, I find him highly unprobable. The main thing i just cant get over is the on the way to work thing.

I do find this thread and discussing lech as a suspect fascinating though!

[Abby Normal]

Incipit tragoedia.

or the fun. ; )

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fish

"I'm not going to touch her" might be a self-preservation thing. If a woman had been outraged, such a woman regaining consciousness (and who had been drinking) might fly into a series of accusations against her helper. It can't have been unknown for good Samaritans helping women in distress to have been accused of an offence, if the disorientated women weren't sure exactly what had happened?

Abby - Lechmerians? Makes Fish and Lechmere sound like prehistoric monsters from Dr Who! When did you say you were hatched - um - born, Fish?

Has a nice ring to it, dont you think?
Lechmere does mean "swamp of leeches". : )

I would have stuck with Cross if i was lechmere.

[curious]

Very, Very well said Ben.
I would just add that using his other name Cross, which seems to be the main red flag for the Lechmerians, is not really suspicious considering its his step dads name who was a police man and this is a police matter and/or he wanted to sheild himself and his family.

Lechmerians??

Really? It seems to me that nearly all the people posting are saying it is worth a further look not that anyone is totally convinced. I haven't even tied a hangman's noose especially for Cross yet.

It is not just the changed name, even though several of you seem to fixate on just that one fact, but a number of incidents that taken TOGETHER seem to point to possibilities.

One fact alone does not make this interesting. It is the sum of various actions that point to something that should be explored.

Ben, I agree with you that using more than one name in Whitechapel at the time was customary, and we have no idea how often in his personal life that Cross-Lechmere might have been known as Cross. Even though he apparently kept his official records all as Lechmere, still he could have been Cross in certain circles.

My question to Ben, and anyone else who wants to chime in, concerns Cross wearing his work clothes to the inquest.

1888 was a completely different era from 2012 in relationship to formality and respect.

To everyone else, it was important to wear their best clothing to the somber occasion of the court and the inquest.

What possible reason could Cross have had for not following "suit"? (sorry, couldn't resist)

Thanks,
curious

[Bridewell]

What Possible Reason?

1888 was a completely different era from 2012 in relationship to formality and respect.

To everyone else, it was important to wear their best clothing to the somber occasion of the court and the inquest.

What possible reason could Cross have had for not following "suit"? (sorry, couldn't resist)

Thanks,
curious

1888 was indeed a completely different era from 2012, as you say. Cross was a working-class man with a family to feed. So:

"What possible reason could Cross have had for not wearing his "best clothes"?

Perhaps he didn't own any.

Regards, Bridewell.