Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Bridewell]

Could Be

But letīs change the scenario somehow! Here comes the cake-longing pupil again, he enters the room, cuts himself a piece of cake ... and hears approaching steps outside the room! He quickly finds himself a bowl, turns it upside down and puts it over the cut cake, concealing what he has done.

Why does he do that? Because, of course, the implications are clear: He is in a room, alone, with a cut cake. Therefore, the cakecutter is robbed of the anonymity that belongs to the kids in the schoolyard.

That's fine as far as it goes, Fish, but wouldn't a previous visitor to the room, with the same intention, have done exactly the same when he heard the approach of this boy? The only argument would be - could he conceal himself for long enough not to be suspected

Okay, letīs swop the cake for Nichols and take a look at things!

It's not a direct comparison because, while your boy possibly had no place of concealment available, we don't know that the same was true on Bucks Row. Okay, Cross might have pulled the clothes down when he heard Paul approach, but wouldn't an earlier killer have done the same if he heard the approach of Cross himself? Even if there was no place of concealment, pulling down the clothes might (and if he existed, did) allow sufficient time to get far enough from the scene to escape detection before the alarm was raised.

It's quite possible that the killer was Cross and he was a very cool customer; more likely in my view, though, that the killer was someone else and just got lucky.

Regards, Bridewell.

To me, this is a very compelling argument against Charles Cross/Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman

I can see some merit in it, but not enough to form a compelling argument. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just that I don't find as much strength in it as you do.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"I can see some merit in it, but not enough to form a compelling argument. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just that I don't find as much strength in it as you do."

Thatīs just fine, Bridewell! It will ensure that everything is looked at critically, and there can be no better thing in cases like this one!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

I got that wrong I think - Cross said he had been at Pickfords for 20 years - that would be from 1868 when he was 19. His step father died in 1869.
There is a slight chance that he called himself Cross when he started at Pickfords as his step father was still alive when he started there and accordingly a chance that when in 'work mode' he regarded himself as Cross. I have mentioned this before in a previous thread and it is only fair to mention it as a possibility.

So, if the police said to him, "What's the best way to get hold of you?" Would his reply not have been something along the lines of, "I work for Pickfords, so just ask for Charles Cross".
Isn't the claim that he used two names for dishonest purposes entirely speculative?

In all likelihood he never called himself Cross and only did it in 1888 out of mockery.

There is, of course, a possibility, but "likelihood"? Not for me.
"Mockery"? Not much point in mocking someone if they have no idea that you're doing it. I think you're at risk of undermining a decent proposition if you start adulterating it with sheer guesswork.

Regards, Bridewell.

[harry]

There was nothing to be gained by staying with Nicholls.They would have been aware that police patrolled the streets,so leaving and hoping to find one was a show of concern,not anything else.On contacting police they had fullfilled any legal obligations that applied.There was nothing to prevent them from continuing on.They were not obliged to give a statement at that time.There is no information they were asked for one.Everything they did was in accordance with their rights and responsibilities..If it is felt that they showed a callousness in departing for work,it should be taken into consideration that the Victorian workman felt a responsibility and loyalty to his employer,that appears to be lacking today.Do not judge by today's standards.

[Fisherman]

Welcome back, Harry. Perhaps you would now direct me to the two posts where I supposedly lied?
I have asked you tree times now, and the time has come for you to provide the information!

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

.If it is felt that they showed a callousness in departing for work,it should be taken into consideration that the Victorian workman felt a responsibility and loyalty to his employer,that appears to be lacking today.Do not judge by today's standards.

Very true, Harry. There was no guarantee that a valid reason for lateness would be accepted. There was no redress for an aggrieved employee. There was no right of appeal against unfair dismissal. There were no unemployment benefits. There was little or no prospect of getting another job without a satisfactory reference.There were no industrial tribunals.

The two men were, quite understandably, anxious to get to work.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"Very true, Harry. There was no guarantee that a valid reason for lateness would be accepted. There was no redress for an aggrieved employee. There was no right of appeal against unfair dismissal. There were no unemployment benefits. There was little or no prospect of getting another job without a satisfactory reference.There were no industrial tribunals."

Jeez - itīs a wonder ANYBODY survived!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Warum?

Hello Christer. I agree that it is interesting that Lechmere was nearly always (so far as we know) Lechmere and not Cross. I agree further that "explanations" about his motive for giving "Cross" as his name may or may not fare well.

So let's try this. IF he is giving his name as "Cross" rather than "Lechmere," what was his aim?

Did he expect that, by doing so, he would be exempt as a suspect? How so? If once the police began to suspect him, could they not seek him at work or home--under WHATEVER name? Surely they would recognise him again?

So what is the ultimate point in a name change, GIVEN you are the murderer?

(Incidentally, I'm delighted to see this thread and Cross being considered. I think that ALL avenues must be checked out.)

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"IF he is giving his name as "Cross" rather than "Lechmere," what was his aim?
Did he expect that, by doing so, he would be exempt as a suspect? How so? If once the police began to suspect him, could they not seek him at work or home--under WHATEVER name? Surely they would recognise him again?
So what is the ultimate point in a name change, GIVEN you are the murderer?"

To me, Lynn, it would seem that he mainly tried to stay undetected not by the police, but instead by his wife and family, and at his job.
This is in accordance with his strange clothing at the inquest - it provided him with the opportunity to keep his wife unknowing of what he actually did that day - witnessed at an inquest.
Likewise, if there was never any checkout at the job, then he would not have been the guy that found a Ripper victim and testified about it there either.

Bottom line - the police did not pry into his business, by appearances. The working comrades and the wife and family, though, saw his everyday moves and would notice if he was absent at work, if he came home late etc - and if they could tie that to the Ripper case, he would be in trouble.

Maybe also, if he was entertaining a thought of perhaps having to run for it in the future and try to hide out, then having given the police a false name would make him harder to find.

This is how I look upon it as it stands. Others may have other explanations.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

.

"Mockery"? Not much point in mocking someone if they have no idea that you're doing it. I think you're at risk of undermining a decent proposition if you start adulterating it with sheer guesswork.

Regards, Bridewell.[/QUOTE]

I disagree on both counts:
-there is some self satisfaction in mocking someone, even if they have no idea that you're doing it. It's a valve for letting off steam. The fact that the person that you are mocking is actually dead at the time would make no difference to the need for letting off steam if you had deep resentments.

-The basic facts of the case have been gone over myriad times. Even when new facts are discovered, as in this case, it is obliged that there be some speculation as to motives and psychology of the suspect. The thing is whether the 'guesswork' is convincing when measured against our own personal experiences of how people function.

Fisherman and Lechmere are pretty good at being convincing.

The only warning signals that I feel about the 'guesswork' is that Fisherman and Lechmere might have made good criminal lawyers, both. And we have to take a step back to avoid being steamrollered by their fervour.

But even in a "sitting on the fence" position, I would agree with quite a number of their assessments. Not 'all'.

[Robert]

Fish, by walking off with Paul to find a policeman, Cross would have been taking a grave risk, if he was guilty. There was no reason that I can see why he should have done this (if he was guilty). Paul had not apparently seen any blood, and there was no reason why he should have suspected Cross of wrongdoing. Cross could easily have suggested that they split up, to increase their chances of fnding a PC. Paul would doubtless have agreed, especially given the psychlogical dominance Cross is supposed to have had over him (not convinced of that but there you go). Once on his own, Cross could have ditched the knife, and if he could make himself sufficiently presentable, might even have spoken to a policeman. Or he could have just carried on to work and doubtless never have been discovered.

You and Lechmere, on the other hand, have Cross stopping Paul, chatting to him, going with him to a policeman, and after that, even carrying on walking with him. It's as if Cross has a sentimental attachment to his bloodstains and gory knife. It's as though he's putting off the moment when he has to be parted from them!

[Robert]

Fish, this may sound like a piece of banter but I mean it seriously : in my opinion to suggest that it was likely that by giving a different name, Cross could hide his involvement in the case from his illiterate wife, is to sadly underestimate the shrewdness of women and the sheer investigative proficiency of the female grapevine.

[lynn cates]

planning

Hello Christer. Thanks. I suppose that would work, given the police never came back to see him. But IF they had, surely his suspicion would be compounded?

It seems that, given the views I see in this thread, Paul's appearance was not anticipated. So I wonder if his Cross substitution were planned or spontaneous?

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Cross could have split up to go where exactly ? And why drop the knife if he wanted to use it again ?

[Robert]

Hi Ruby

Go where? Anywhere away from Paul. Fish and Lechmere are arguing that Cross was guilty, that he had incriminating evidence on him, and that he wanted to leave Buck's Row as quickly as possible in order to erase, ditch, hide or otherwise dispose of this evidence. I'm saying that in that case, he would above all have wanted to be on his own.

I like your "Cross could have split up" BTW. Maybe Cross could have gone to dispose of the evidence while sending Lechmere to meet the policeman.