Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Garry Wroe]

The question of timings goes back to the old problem of how anyone at that time knew what the time was to any degree of accuracy ... There were church clocks but there were no churches in the immediate area bewteen Doveton Street, Bucks Row and that part of Whitechapel Road.

You appear to be under the misapprehension that people needed to see the local clocks in order to determine the time, Lechmere. They didn't. More often than not guesstimates were made based upon quarterly chimes, the sound of which carried for miles. Such clocks were relatively plentiful. Local churches, breweries, factories, town halls and suchlike all had clocks. It is also a matter of record that many neighbourhood dockers used the workhouse bell as an alarm clock. These people weren't as helpless and hopeless as you seem to imagine.

[Robert]

I imagine it must have been quite a cacophany, and that people might have failed to notice, say, the first couple of chimes before noticing the third.

How many of us have had the experience of being in a room, deep in thought, when the room clock has struck the quarter or whatever, and the chime isn't noticed until it's finished and the last vibrations have died away? I have had that sort of thing - I'm sure that something just happened, I can hear the chimes in my head, I look up and the clock says 31 minutes past the hour.

[Fisherman]

Although it would be nice to have all the times in this drama properly recorded, I don´t think it is all that important. We know the order in which things happened, and that is what really matters here. The carmen examined the body - they left for Hanbury street, not meeting Neil, meaning that he came to Buck´s Row AFTER the carmen had left it - Mizen arrived at the murder spot and found Neil alone, meaning that the latter had already dispatched Thain for the doctor, etcetera.
In my house, the different clocks do not all show the same time. There are differences of about three or four minutes inbetween them, and such a thing could easily have applied back then too. Moreover, the fact that Paul, Mizen, Neil and Thain all speak of 3.45 does not have to be all that strange, since most people give the time in five minute intervals. Thus 3.44 may be given as 3.45, as may 3.46. and in the small area we are talking about, a two minute discrepancy makes a lot of difference.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Indeed

Although it would be nice to have all the times in this drama properly recorded, I don´t think it is all that important. We know the order in which things happened, and that is what really matters here. The carmen examined the body - they left for Hanbury street, not meeting Neil, meaning that he came to Buck´s Row AFTER the carmen had left it - Mizen arrived at the murder spot and found Neil alone, meaning that the latter had already dispatched Thain for the doctor, etcetera.
In my house, the different clocks do not all show the same time. There are differences of about three or four minutes inbetween them, and such a thing could easily have applied back then too. Moreover, the fact that Paul, Mizen, Neil and Thain all speak of 3.45 does not have to be all that strange, since most people give the time in five minute intervals. Thus 3.44 may be given as 3.45, as may 3.46. and in the small area we are talking about, a two minute discrepancy makes a lot of difference.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Just so. All timings have to be treated as approximate unless there is good reason to do otherwise - such as perhaps Mrs Long who was confident of the time because the brewary clock had just struck the half hour.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

Good try Fish -I am with you though.

A minute can be a very long time.

[Versa]

add one

well I'm still reading the thread and all the information we have on Charles Cross/Lechmere but he is without a doubt my number one suspect. It would be nice to see him added to the list of suspects on the 'suspects' bit of the forum because he certainly deserves more attention.

So far I haven't seen any decent argument that would rule him out. He seems to have too many links to the crime scenes and for me the fact that Robert Paul stated that he felt intimidated/nervous of Charles speaks volumes. There must of been something about Lechmeres manner as he approached Paul that unnerved him.

There is a small window of time uncounted for by Lechmere be it 10 or 20 mins and while everyone can argue about the accuracy of the time guestimates the people involved must of had a good idea of the time because they were able to arrive at work on time every morning. People werent that clueless when it came to time, we rely on watches now but I can usually still guesstimate the time without looking at a clock and I wake up within a few minuets of 8am every morning.

People are also quibbling about what he might of done with removed body parts but as far as I know nothing was removed that wouldn't fit into a pocket. I don't believe that anything taken would of started to smell that fast, if it did then meat hanging outside a butchers shop would be unbearable after a few hours.

Lechmere was so close to the victim so close to the time of her death that any modern investigation would have him under close scrutiny and so therefore we should also.

Much of the evidence against him is circumstantial. But of course it is! The same can be said for any of the ripper suspects. He wasn't suspected at the time but he should of been. The police at the time made many errors of judgement and errors in the investigation.

Some people are saying that after such a close call he would of stopped for a while... Why? After getting away with such a blazen murder he may well of felt invincible.

What was it about Lechmeres initial manner that unsettled Robert Paul so much?

For my part Cross/Lechmere is absolutely the primary person of interest and Im shocked that more is not made of him on these forums.

[Ben]

Im shocked that more is not made of him on these forums

I don't find it all that surprising, Versa.

Cross had the means and the opportunity to commit the Nichols murder as far as we know, but that doesn't make him suspicious. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he lied to the police, and certainly no good reason to believe he killed anyone. He doesn't have "too many links to the crimes scenes" at all, and the links he can claim are both tenuous in the extreme and far less compelling than those possessed by some of the deservedly more popular suspects that get discussed here.

What was it about Lechmeres initial manner that unsettled Robert Paul so much?

Nothing.

Paul never so much as insinuated that he was unsettled by Cross' "manner". He was approached in the darkness of a quiet street in a dodgy part of London, and the fact that this alarmed him somewhat doesn't reflect at all suspiciously on Cross. It could have been anyone, and the effect would undoubtedly have been the same. Moreover, if there was anything menacing about Cross' manner, he was very unlikely to have been successful in procuring victims. Note that most "successful" serial killers do not exude an external menace.

"Some people are saying that after such a close call he would of stopped for a while... Why?"

Because that's what serial killers have been documented to do when they receive police exposure of the type that Cross was subjected to.

There is no "missing time" either. Accepting that timings were approximate and generally rounded up or down to nearest significant figure, the time when Cross left home meshes up pretty well with his arrival time at Buck's Row.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

The amusing thing Ben is that your objections apply to Hutchinson but more so.
It should be obvious that Cross should be regarded as a major suspect and it is telling that he never has been regarded in the Ripper world as a suspect. But were there to be a modern investigation he would be the first person the police would pull in. Most sensible (ha! in my opinion) commentators in this field would say that the likely culprit would be a nobody local man.
Then when a nobody local man who fits the bill pretty well is brought forward then all sorts of objections are raised. These objections are usually based around him being an ordinary guy and an ordinary guy wouldn’t do this or that. Supposedly.
The Ripper world is still stuck in a rut thinking that the suspect must be a mad man (ideally a foreigner) or a middle class culprit with a middle class conscience, or perhaps one of the suspects proposed by self justificatory senior policemen of the period.

[Bridewell]

Stuck In a Rut

Lechmere isn't the worst suspect ever suggested, but nor is he the best, having no known record of violence, or even of criminality, so I think Ben's post is balanced and objective.

Then when a nobody local man who fits the bill pretty well is brought forward then all sorts of objections are raised. These objections are usually based around him being an ordinary guy and an ordinary guy wouldn’t do this or that. Supposedly.
The Ripper world is still stuck in a rut thinking that the suspect must be a mad man (ideally a foreigner) or a middle class culprit with a middle class conscience, or perhaps one of the suspects proposed by self justificatory senior policemen of the period.

These objections are usually based around him being an ordinary guy and an ordinary guy wouldn’t do this or that.

Lechmere, I honestly can't remember anyone on this thread putting that argument forward. Can you show us some examples please.

The Ripper world is still stuck in a rut thinking that the suspect must be a mad man (ideally a foreigner) or a middle class culprit with a middle class conscience

That's not my experience. There are proponents of Druitt whose candidacy is not without merit but (excluding the Impressionist eccentrics) most Casebook members seem to take the view that a local unknown was responsible. I don't believe that person was Cross/Lechmere for reasons that I have already outlined. I do, however, accept your right to hold the views that you do.
Could you acknowledge, please, that those who disagree with you are entitled to do so, and that the "Ripper world" is not "stuck in a rut" just because some Casebook members don't share your endorsement of this particular candidate.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Versa]

I don't find it all that surprising, Versa.

Cross had the means and the opportunity to commit the Nichols murder as far as we know, but that doesn't make him suspicious. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he lied to the police, and certainly no good reason to believe he killed anyone. He doesn't have "too many links to the crimes scenes" at all, and the links he can claim are both tenuous in the extreme and far less compelling than those possessed by some of the deservedly more popular suspects that get discussed here.

if the murders and inquiry happened now the first person at the scene would be under scrutiny and therefore we has 'modern investigators' should look closely at him. The links may be 'tenuous' however they are there and deserve some attention. He did give a name to the police that he didnt commonly use when dealing with authority and that again does deserve some attention. My birth name is the name I use now after my mother marrying, I had another name from the age of 7-16, at 16 I reverted to my birth name and while I could probably use the alternate name I can only imagine my doing so if I were trying to hide something.

Nothing.

Paul never so much as insinuated that he was unsettled by Cross' "manner". He was approached in the darkness of a quiet street in a dodgy part of London, and the fact that this alarmed him somewhat doesn't reflect at all suspiciously on Cross. It could have been anyone, and the effect would undoubtedly have been the same. Moreover, if there was anything menacing about Cross' manner, he was very unlikely to have been successful in procuring victims. Note that most "successful" serial killers do not exude an external menace.

two things here...

1. no other witnesses state that they were in any way alarmed/frightened/intimidated or otherwise concerned when other witnesses approached them. Had Cross/Lechmere simply hailed Robert Paul 'oiy mate, come here theres a woman here fallen down' then there would of been no alarm at all... Cross/Lechmere didnt do that, he walked towards Paul and that could be seen as intimidating.

2. 'Note that most "successful" serial killers do not exude an external menace'
Well 'most' serial killers havent been disturbed in the act... Its highly possible that if Cross were JTR then he could of been A) in an aroused/aggressive state and B) weighing up the chances of killing the possible witness and that pensive/aggressive state may of made him more intimidating. Plus Paul wasnt Cross's (if he is jtr) intended victim so his 'charm' may not of been either needed or present.

Because that's what serial killers have been documented to do when they receive police exposure of the type that Cross was subjected to.

There is no "missing time" either. Accepting that timings were approximate and generally rounded up or down to nearest significant figure, the time when Cross left home meshes up pretty well with his arrival time at Buck's Row.

All the best,
Ben

Your wrong there.... Many serial killers have continued to kill despite intensive man hunts, Im going to assume here that you at least have a cursory knowledge of other serial killers and I dont have to produce a huge list of names? The other point is that there is no cookie cutter serial killer much as we would like there to be.

As to the time thing your going to have to explain that because to me if Cross/Lechemere did leave home at 3:30 and was late for work then he would of been walking at least at a fairly fast pace and even at a slow pace he would of been at the place of the murder around 6-15 mins before Paul arrived.

[Versa]

while Im here

Can anyone supply the address of Lechmere's mother which is supposedly near to Berner Street? Im still trawling through the thread and have lost the post or post that alluded to her address

[Ben]

if the murders and inquiry happened now the first person at the scene would be under scrutiny and therefore we has 'modern investigators' should look closely at him.

I don't negate that, and have myself enforced that point on a number of occasions, but that doesn't make Cross suspicious. Somebody had to discover Nichols' body. It was an inevitability, and moreover, the chances of the body being discovered by a policeman or a carman were very high considering the working hours of those particular jobs. How can such an inevitable event - the discovery of the body by just the type of person that was likely to encounter it first - be construed as suspicious? It just isn't. And no, the use of another name isn't suspicious either, especially considering the prevalence of aliases in that particular district. Had he picked an entirely false name, like Henry Howard Holmes, we might assume he had "something to hide", but the name he provided was one he actually used.

Had Cross/Lechmere simply hailed Robert Paul 'oiy mate, come here theres a woman here fallen down' then there would of been no alarm at all... Cross/Lechmere didnt do that, he walked towards Paul and that could be seen as intimidating.

So you're saying that because Cross walked towards Paul as opposed to yelling at him from across the street, the former ought to be considered "suspicious"? Personally, I'd be far more concerned to hear shouts in the darkness. Again, it was simply the circumstance that caused Paul to become concerned, and understandably so. There was absolutely nothing about Cross' demeanour that prompted alarm on Paul's part, and certainly no evidence - or even the vaguest hint of an indication - that Paul found Cross in an "aroused/aggressive state", or that he found him personally "intimidating". It quite simply never happened.

Your wrong there.... Many serial killers have continued to kill despite intensive man hunts,

Ah, but that wasn't what I said. I was far more specific than that. I was talking about those serial killers who, for whatever reason and in whatever capacity, came into direct contact with the police. In most cases, that police contact generally heralded a marked lull in that killer's activity, and in no instance did any of them go on to commit murder a week later a few hundred yards away from their previous crime. If you have a "huge list of names" that demonstrates otherwise, I'd be most intrigued.

if Cross/Lechemere did leave home at 3:30 and was late for work then he would of been walking at least at a fairly fast pace and even at a slow pace he would of been at the place of the murder around 6-15 mins before Paul arrived.

If he left his home in Doveton Street “about” 3:30, as per his inquest testimony, it would give a likely time of arrival at the murder scene of approximately six minutes later, which isn’t far off his estimated time of arrival at 3:40, especially if the timings were approximate.

[Ben]

Good post, Bridewell. I can't recall anyone raising any objection to the notion of the ripper as an outwardly "ordinary guy" either.

Hi Lechmere.

You're preaching to the choir, in my case, with your last two paragraphs, but I can't help but note the following:

"Most sensible (ha! in my opinion) commentators in this field would say that the likely culprit would be a nobody local man. Then when a nobody local man who fits the bill pretty well is brought forward then all sorts of objections are raised."

But wasn't that precisely what you did for a very large part of last year? You had the opportunity to pooh-pooh all the suspect types you sensibly reject, such as the mad foreigners and the middle classers, but instead you made a beeline for Hutchinson, a "nobody local man", raising "all sorts of objections" and making various unsuccessful attempts to make him appear weak as a suspect. Surely that was the worst thing you could have done if your objective was to draw attention to the generic unknown local gentile, and win those mad, foreign, middle class Jew-fanciers to common sense?

I suspect you might have been keen on Cross for some time and hoped to downplay the validity of the perceived "rival" candidate, but had you at least acknowledged that Hutchinson was a step in the right direction (or, at the very least, your preferred direction of suspicious witnesses who were also local men) I imagine that a good deal of back and forth fisty-cuffs could have been avoided.

Since you've brought up Hutchinson, it's worth noting that the extraordinary amount of interest that attaches to him - an unknown local man - must be considered a reasonable indication that the ripper world is not quite as "stuck in a rut" as you envisage. There are more Casebook posts about him, and more books written about him, than any other suspect, which would not be the case of ripperology in general was oblivious to the merits of the Joe Average suspect. The boot simply didn't fit as well when people tried to do the same thing with Cross, but that doesn't mean he isn't a person of interest worth researching further.

I just think that a history of extremely vocal "anti-Hutchinsonism" is a hindrance to anyone who wants to promote Cross as a suspect.

All the best,
Ben

[curious]

There was absolutely nothing about Cross' demeanour that prompted alarm on Paul's part.

I don't believe any of us can know that for sure, let alone "absolutely."

[Ben]

I'll rephrase then:

There is absolutely no evidence - or any reason to think - that Cross' demeanour prompted alarm on Paul's part.