Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Robert]

Canteen food must have been REALLY bad.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"The thing is, if Cross had given his name as "Cross" to Pickford's, then even though he subsequently called himself "Lechmere" in censuses etc, it would have been odd if he'd gone along to Pickford's and said "Oh, by the way, I now want to be known as 'Lechmere.' "

But WHY would he give his name as Cross if he signed himself Lechmere and thought of himself the same way?

I guess we wonīt get much further with this. To me, it remains one of many anomalies connected with him.

"When talking to Mizen, Cross would have known that if he'd given his name as "Lechmere" and the police went round to his workplace only to be told that there was no Charles Lechmere working there but there was a Charles Cross, questions might be asked. Much simpler to just give Mizen the name of "Cross."

Much odder, though, once the police discovered it! And I still say that you do not first ponder what you call yourself at work, and then adjust to that just because you suspect the police may go there, and you wish to spare them trouble. He could just as well have surmised they would stop by at Doveton Street. And surely he would not have called himself Cross in the family, having wed as Lechmere?

"I think if he was the murderer, and didn't turn up for work that day, he'd have been the object of strong police interest if they found out about it."

Perhaps so, Robert! But I am mainly suggesting that the timing of the Chapman event speaks more of THAT particular murder as a possible lost working day. And the blood involved in the Chapman deed and, not least, the Kelly deed, speaks the same language.

"Re Sept 30th, if, as the theory goes, Cross kills on his way to work in order not to arouse the suspicions of his wife by staying out late, then how would he explain getting home on Sept 30th at around 3 AM? He can explain his going - to visit his mother - but what about his coming back so late?"

"Iīm off to my motherīs, dear! Donīt wait up for me, I may be late!"

See what I mean?

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"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?"

Absolutely - within certain limits. The family man argument is clearly exactly the same for both guys. And the trouble with that is that most serialists are not in relationships. Some are, though, Rader, Bundy, Collins, Gacy, Ridgway etc.
In consequence of this, I have always said that serialists are NORMALLY not family men - but some are. Itīs all there on the threads, Abby, if you wish to go looking for it.

As for the checking out part, I think we must appreciate that what was a simmering stew when Nichols died, was a tabascostrewn hotpot in full boiling when Kelly was killed. In consequence of this, I would suggest that the police were under much more pressure to sift all possible clues in a much more thorough manner at the latter occasion. Therefore it applies that if one of the to, Cross and Hutchinson stood abetter chance of slipping through the net, Cross would be our best bet.

The best,
Fisherman

As for the checking out part, I think we must appreciate that what was a simmering stew when Nichols died, was a tabascostrewn hotpot in full boiling when Kelly was killed. In consequence of this, I would suggest that the police were under much more pressure to sift all possible clues in a much more thorough manner at the latter occasion. Therefore it applies that if one of the to, Cross and Hutchinson stood abetter chance of slipping through the net, Cross would be our best bet.

Sorry Fish
Dont buy that-not for a second. Both were murders that were trying to be solved. at the time of Nichols murder, she was the third in the press/ public view after Smith and tabram anyway.

If you have argued that Hutch must have been checked out by police and eliminated as a suspect, you have to say the exact same thing about Lech.


Can you at least admit that?

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"Can you at least admit that?"

I "admit" all things I believe in, Abby. The ones I donīt believe in, I canīt "admit" - why would I?

It is all easy, I think: the pressure was much harder on the police in November then it was back in August, and therefore it stands to reason to suggest that the police would have been more thorough at that remove in time.

It has been suggested on the boards that Hutchinson was not checked out, in spite of this. I find that hard to swallow, much as I canīt disprove it.
A suggestion that Cross/Lechmere may not have been checked out is a lot easier to accept on my behalf. It was early days, and Cross/Lechmere had the advantage of beeing seemingly corroborated by Paul.

I freely admit that.

The best, Abby!
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, as to why he would have given his name as "Cross" to Pickford's in the first place : he would have been very young when he started working for them. They may have asked for his address, next of kin etc. His next of kin was named "Cross."

For all we know, Cross may have told his wife, before their wedding, about his past and the "Cross" name. But in any event, Fish, who would a man rather keep sweet - the police, or his wife?

Yes, he could have skipped work on Saturday 8th owing to the blood. He'd then have had to get cleaned up and either go home and make some kind of excuse to his wife - tummy trouble would seem a fitting one! - or else stay out all day and then go home and make out that he'd been to work.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"Fish, as to why he would have given his name as "Cross" to Pickford's in the first place : he would have been very young when he started working for them. They may have asked for his address, next of kin etc. His next of kin was named "Cross."

Iīm with you here, Robert. This may be a possibility.

"For all we know, Cross may have told his wife, before their wedding, about his past and the "Cross" name. But in any event, Fish, who would a man rather keep sweet - the police, or his wife? "

Both, I would imagine - but for different reasons. At any rate, giving one name to a police corpse that may subsequently discover that it is not your REAL name does not equate keeping the police sweet. Not at all, in fact.

"Yes, he could have skipped work on Saturday 8th owing to the blood. He'd then have had to get cleaned up and either go home and make some kind of excuse to his wife - tummy trouble would seem a fitting one! - or else stay out all day and then go home and make out that he'd been to work."

He could have done it this way, yes - the main purpose with the suggestion as such is to point to the possibility that he may not have gone to Pickfordīs. Many people seem to imagine Cross arriving there with blood up over his elbows and entrails hanging from his hat, but perhaps there is no need to accept this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

]

and maybe he had her womb during lunch break. ; )[/

Are you suggesting that he was French ?

[Lechmere]

Let'sgo through the potentialy questionable parts of Cross's actions with the alterative explanations. I will try not to leave any out...

1. He leave home at 2.20 or 2.30 and arrives over Polly's body at 2.45. It is a six or perhaps seven minute walk and he was allegedly late for work.
How can we account for this discrepancy?
Did he in fact use the extra time to meet (presumably on Whitechapel Road) and kill Polly?
Or was he dawdling, having a few fags along the way. Or did he actualy leave later than he thought?

2. When he was walking up Bucks Row to find Polly about 150 yards up, why wasn't he aware that Paul was clomping along behind him nfor most of the way. Why did he only suss out that Paul was 40 yards behind him when he stoppede to look at Polly (supposedly thinking she was a tarpaulin)? After all PC Neil saw PC Thane the full 150 yards distant.
Was it because he was actually busy killing Polly and only noticed Paul when he was maybe 80 yards way and he quickly threw the dress down as best he could, wiped his hands and the knife and concealed it and reversed into the middle of the road as Paul approached?
Or was he minding his own business, lost in his own thoughts (on this dangerous thoroughfare frequented by thugs) until he noticed the tarpaulin like object on the opposite pavement?

3. Did he approach Paul with a terrible aspect to his face because that was the kind of guy he was, or was it because he had just murdered someone. Did this initial contact establish a pecking order between the two -

4. Did he tap Paul on the shoulder, as Paul pirouetted around him, just to attract his attention or as part of a show of dominance?
Would he - had he been the murderer - have been worried about leaving a trace of blood - would he have already wiped his hands? Or was he already thinking that he would get Paul to touch the body and so possibly independently get blood trasfers.
Or was he just a tactile individual.

5. Why did he egg Paul on to touch the body? Why did he touch the body himself? Why didn't he try and talk to th body if they were not sure that she had swooned or not?
Was it as he was a tactile kinda guy (see above)?
Is touching up the prostrate body of a woman normal behaviour in the Victorian period? Did it happen in any of the other Whitechapel murders?
Was it to insinuate Paul into the murder, to make sure that both possibly had good reason to have blood on them?
He almost seems to have ordered Paul to touch her - was this also an act to show dominance?

6. Why did he refuse to help Paul prop her up?
Was it because he suddenly developed an aversion to touching her - in case she woke up and cried 'rape'?
Or was it because he knew he had sliced her throat and that if she was moved this would become immediatley apparent.

7. Why did they leave Polly lying in the street either dead or possibly freshly raped and unconscious without alerting immediate neighbours or nightwatchmen?
Was it because they were late for work and assumed they would bump into a policeman somewhere along the way?
Or was itt because Cross was anxious to be as far from the crime scene as possible before anyone took too close a look at Polly?

8. When they met PC Mizen, did Cross call himself Cross instead of Lechmere as he had a fondness for the Cross name, particularly when addressing another policeman despite the fact that his first stepfather had died 19 years before?
Or did he call himself Cross to some people anyway - even though every single record we have (and there are a great many) state that his name was Lechmere... apart from a census return when he was only 11?
Or did he chose a plausible deniable name that would create distance between himself and the crime?
The name was given to Mizen with about three minutes of them leaving the body, when according to him he didn't actually know whether she was dead or not and if she was dead then it was presumably from some sort of swoon as there were no visible injuries.And at that moment the press had not made anything about any spate of attacks so he had no reason to suppose that any such press scare would arise.

9. Did he walk down Hanbury Street with Paul despite it being a longer route and despite him claiming to be late for work, just because he wanted a bit of company to talk about what they had just seen or possibly because he was worried now about being attacked in turn by the perspon who had possibly attacked Polly...
Or did he want to bend Paul's ear about what he had seen.Did he want to see where Paul worked so he could implicate him further in a future crime (Annie Chapman) for which Paul was raided and questioned. Did he also want to avoid walking straight off down Old Montague Street and passed the Tabram murder scene? Was he worried that this might cause Mizen to twig?

10. Did he turn up at the inquest in his work clothes because he thought he might be able to get to work or perhaps he only had one set of clothes?
In whoich case why was he also wearing his apron?
He left a decent sum in his will in 1920 and saved enough money while being a carman to open a grocer shop in about 1901. So I think we can assume he had more than one set of clothes. He was a member of the prosperous working class not a pauper.
We know that Paul had to pay for a replacement to do his work for two days due to his inquest appearance. Paul knew this in advance. Is it credible that Cross did not know in advance that he wouldn't be able to go to work? Did he actually turn up in his work clothes enecause he wanted his illiterate wife to think that he had gone to work?

11. Was it just a coincidence that Stride was murdered earlier than the others on a Saturday night/Sunday moring near where his mother lived with one of his daughters (147 Cable Street - just on the other side of the railway arches where the Pinchin Street torso was found)?

12. Was it a coincidence that the apron was found on a direct route back from Mitre Square to his house?

13. Was it a coincidence that the murders started soon after he moved to Doveton Street away from his mother's neighbourhood, in mid June 1888?:

14. Is it just happenstance that bhis background fits that of many psychopathic serial killers? When he was 9, his mother (aged 32) remarried an authority figure (policeman) aged just 23. This was bigamous as his real father was still alive and living in Northamptonshire where he started a new family. After his step father's premature death in 1869, his mother then remarries someone else, this time eleven years here senior (called Joseph Forsdike).Jospeph Forsdike died in December 1889 (so concluding the sequence). His mother must have been a remarkable woman to have married three times - most people in the East End used to just shack up with subsquent partners even if they adpted their names.
Also Charles Allen Lechmere was the grandson of Charles Fox Lechmere - a member of the landed gentry from Herefordshire. The East End Lechmere's rapidly descended from the ranks of the well off squirachy to struggling East End members of the working class with extreme rapidity. The lechmjere's controlled two prosperous villages in Herefordshire and their main base was in Worcestershire. Fownhope in Herefordshire is to nthis day full of Lechmere reminders - the graveyard and church is full of impressive meorials to Charles Allen Lechmere's close relatives - his grandfather, his rich cousins and so forth. The Lechmere crest is a pelican ''vulning' - that is cutting its breast to draw blood to suckle and revive it's dead young. Or so the story goes.
Be that as it may, psychopaths often justify their acts by a sense of lost entitlement.

[Lechmere]

It is interesting to ponder the differences between Hutchinson and Cross with respect to how the police did or where likely to treat them.

Cross was a witness to finding the body.
Hutchinson was a witness to the movements of the victim and of her being with a potential suspect about whom he gave a detailed description.

Hutchinson was apparently discredited after having out himself at a crime scene.

Hutchinson was not in regular emploiymnet and he lived in a common lodging house. We know that the police were prejudiced against both categories of person.
Cross was a family man with a regular job and his own house. We know now that this does not preclude him from being a serial killer but back then the Police didn't think like that.

When the Nicholls murder took place the police immediatley thought it must be a gang attack or the work of an obviously mad foreigner. Cross did not come into either category. Up until the double event, the police persisted in fixating with the mad foreigner line of thinking.

Cross quietly and unobtrusely attended the inquest and drifted from sight.
Hutchinson made a meal of it and gave newspaper interviews.

Hutchinson went to the police after the inquest.
Paul was dragged out of bed as he did not present himself. I would suggest that Cross presented himself to a police station over the weekend and was then asked to attend the inquest on the Monday.

There is ample reason why the police will have checked out Hutchinson and neglected to so so with Cross. We know from the extant police records that they checked out the three butchers in Winthrop Street. We know they checked out Paul. We have no evidence that they checked out Cross, which is no doubt why he was always known as Cross.

Incidentally are there any instances of law abiding non foreign family men going under alternative names in the East End at that time? I can't think of any. Maybe some people did for obscure reasons.

We know that Dew in his interesting memoirs remembered Hutchinson well. he couldm't even remember Cross's name. That says it all. The anonymous man. The man who most 'Ripperologists' misname or give an incorrect profession to, His involvement in the case is traditionally skipped over and the whole discovery of Polly is routinely mistold - even in reputable dramatisations. Cross was such a boring everyman that his role in the crimes was neglected and ignored by everyone from the police right down to modern day 'Ripperologists'. He is so unfashionable. It just couldn't have been him. He was a non entity.

Why was Paul raided by the way? Partly because he didn't present himself (as Cross clearly had). Partly (probably mainly) because Chapman was killed near his work place. But also becuase every time he opened his mouth he slagged the police off - particularly in the interview he gave on the evening of Polly's murder.

On Toppy the family man compared to Cross the family man...
Toppy lived a disorganised lifestyle. Never saving and getting a stable base. Usually living in lodgings and going from one part of London to another. Seldom bothering about the electoral register. His family often just shacked up and didn't marry. Toppy seems to have given a dodgy address when he married. He seems to have been a big mouth and a bit of a romancer.
Cross comes across as precise. He married properly. His mother married three times. His children are all properly baptised and all marry properly. He had a relatively humble job yet saved enough to open a shop and to leave a decent sum in his will. He lived in proper houses and in similar areas. He is always on the electoral register. One little bit of inside information - no one in his family had a clue that he was involved in the Ripper case - quite unlike Toppy's family. Cross kept it quiet for whatever reason.

[Robert]

Hi Lechmere

Very interesting, particularly the family background.

Just on point 5 : well, there was no point in anyone touching Chapman and Eddowes. They were clearly dead. Ditto Kelly and she was in a locked room to boot.

With Stride, blood was seen. I think one man touched her.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

The differences you've outlined between Cross and Hutchinson only reinforce the reality that there are legitimate grounds for suspicion in the latter case, and not the former. Going to the police after the inquest, giving divergent interviews to police and press, getting discredited etc are all factors that fuel suspicion against Hutchinson, not lessen it. Since none of them apply in Cross's case, that's all the more reason to accept him as the innocent witness he appeared to be.

It is unthinkable that the police considered Hutchinson in the capacity of a suspect and not Cross. You even acknowledge yourself that "back then the Police didn't think like that". Quite so, but you must apply this to Hutchinson too, and appreciate that they would not for one moment have embraced the prospect of the real killer insinuating himself into the investigation voluntarily as a witness (which is what serial killers have been known to do). Far more likely, the police dismissed Hutchinson as a publicity seeker who wasn't there when he said he was - a bit like Emanuel Violenia to their minds. So no, there is not "ample reason why the police will have checked out Hutchinson and neglected to so so with Cross", and I'm amazed by your suggestion that the police interrogated the second body discoverer, Robert Paul, as a suspect, but oddly couldn't get their heads around the idea of the first body discoverer, Charles Cross, also being a potential suspect. I can't see how that would ever make sense.

Was it a coincidence that the apron was found on a direct route back from Mitre Square to his house?

What does it "coincide" with?

The apron disposal location was on the direct, unbroken escape route from Mitre Square to where Hutchinson lived, which was not east of Buck's Row (and thus east of the easternmost murder, and thus not a particularly likely ripper's lair), but slap bang in the centre of where the murders were being committed. And that's the real George Hutchinson we're talking about, incidentally, not "Toppy". It matters not whether Toppy was a "romancer", family man or Manson family member, the point is that he was not the real George Hutchinson, and this has no relevance whatsoever to the events of 1888.

If people are hell-bent on Hutchinson/Cross comparisons, here's Dan Norder's from a few years ago:

"The argument for Cross as a suspect is similar to Hutchinson, in that they both can be placed at a crime scene, but for Cross most of the reasons people have suspected Hutchinson are missing:

1) Cross' testimony was never doubted and/or later ignored by police. (While we don't know that they disagreed with his testimony as compare to deciding it was not relevant or helpful, certainly the possibility that they found errors in it is a key reason people have for suspecting Hutchison.)

2) Cross' statement sounds very matter of fact and plausible, while Hutchinson's features some details that don't ring true.

3) Cross had somewhere to go within the next few minutes (in this murder and theoretically in others if he were involved) and would be far less likely to cover up any blood, etc.

4) Hutchinson by his own account was hanging around spying on someone who became a Ripper victim.

5) Hutchinson only came forward after another witness testified to seeing a mysterious man hanging around the scene of the crime.

6) Hutchinson's account featured a lot of details that could have easily come from previous newspaper reports, while Cross of course did not.

7) Cross was introduced to the police early in the investigation and the murders continued without any sort of interruption afterward.

Everything about Cross as a suspect applies at least equally, and usually more so, to Hutchinson. Hutchinson I think is plausible as a suspect, although of course there are plenty of scenarios that would explain his behavior without making him the killer (he may have been Kelly's pimp, wanting to stay in her room later, hoping to rob the man he says he saw with her, trying for a reward and inventing up details toward that end, and so forth). Cross as the Ripper is a lot more unrealistic, in my opinion."

Pretty much spot on, I'd say.

Best regards,
Ben

[Robert]

Hi Lechmere

Re point 7, I don't see how alerting neighbours or a night watchman was going to make any difference, whether Polly had been raped or whether she was dead. The only value I can see in it is, if Polly had been raped, the presence of a female neighbour might have been in order. But Polly was unconscious. As for Lechmere trying to put distance between himself and Polly, what good would that do him, when he actually gave his name to a policeman?

[Rubyretro]

I'm amazed by your suggestion that the police interrogated the second body discoverer, Robert Paul, as a suspect, but oddly couldn't get their heads around the idea of the first body discoverer, Charles Cross, also being a potential suspect. I can't see how that would ever make sense.

Hi Ben !
It does make sense -Paul was at Polly's murder scene, and then Annie was murdered close to where Paul lived ? Worked? (can't remember which off the top of my head).

I also seem to think that Paul didn't come forward willingly for the inquest, but the Police had to come to find him.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"As for Lechmere trying to put distance between himself and Polly, what good would that do him, when he actually gave his name to a policeman?"

If I may, Robert?

I think that he would perhaps have felt uneasy, standing next to her body with a blood-stained knife concealed. To distance himself from the murder spot would have involved the chance to erase all kinds of potetial evidence.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

What evidence could he erase with Paul by his side, Fish?