Was Polly`s killer interrupted?

[Jon Simons]

No

She was cold to Cross and Paul at about 3.40am. Mrs Lilley heard noises which could have been her murder just after 3.30am, and Dr Llewellyn, who was on the spot at 4.00am, said she had not been dead more than half an hour.

The killer had shown no interest in attacking the genitals, other than the stab that match Tabram`s wound. Perhaps it was Polly`s stay`s that deterred him from any downstairs mutilation? No trophy was taken, or organs displaced.

Does anyone think the Ripper was interrupted in Bucks Row?

[Archaic]

Hi, Jon.

I think it's possible that Polly's killer was "scared off" by something- but not necessarily by the near approach of a witness like Cross. The killer may have heard a noise and thought someone was coming, or seen someone down the street and panicked.

Maybe that other person never even looked his way and never knew that they had nearly witnessed a murder,
but they actually caused the killer to abruptly leave his victim?

After all, he's committing murder right in the street... I would expect him to be extremely hyped up.
I think he became cooler and more confident as his streak of "successful" murders continued and his sense of omnipotence grew.

So I think it's entirely possible that something scared him off, but it might have been something as innocuous as an alley cat making a sudden noise... Or he may have just realized he was staying too long at the scene, and fled for that reason.

[Ultra Violet]

Jon,

her hands and face was cold, her arms were still warm. The coldness of hands and face doesn't mean she was dead for a lenghtier period of time, or actually dead at all by then.
Paul thought he felt a faint heartbeat and that she was still breathing. He could be mistaken with that, of course.

[Jon Simons]

So I think it's entirely possible that something scared him off, but it might have been something as innocuous as an alley cat making a sudden noise... Or he may have just realized he was staying too long at the scene, and fled for that reason.

Hello Archy!

Possible, but Bucks Row seems safer from his point of view than the backyard of No. 29, and that was only a week later. If he really wanted to eviscerate, he`d done all the hard work, so to speak. But yes, he probably moved on a few minutes before Cross turned into Bucks Row. There was a lamp opposite the murder site and Cross never noticed anything until he saw the tarpaulin .

[Archaic]

I think Helga raises a good point about the body warmth according to the witnesses.

I think it's perfectly possible the killer panicked for some unknown reason and fled, which is probably why we see such a horrific escalation of violence and mutilation with the subsequent murder of Annie Chapman.

I think something similar happened when he killed Liz Stride and had to flee before doing what he wanted to do to her, but instead of letting his anger simmer for a week he savaged Catherine Eddowes that same night.

[Jon Simons]

Hi U.V.!


her hands and face was cold, her arms were still warm. The coldness of hands and face doesn't mean she was dead for a lenghtier period of time, or actually dead at all by then.

True, but it wasn`t that cold. I know someone at the inquest said there was a nip in the air that morning but it was August, 56 degrees Fahrenheit.


Paul thought he felt a faint heartbeat and that she was still breathing. He could be mistaken with that, of course.

He must have been mistaken as death would have been instantaneous, but if Paul did feel movement, Cross did it!

[Jon Simons]

... and of course, one of the top surgeons in the area, Dr Llewellyn, gave an outside parameter for T.O.D. of half an hour when he checked the body at 4.00.

[Archaic]

I don't think there's really any way for us to know if the killer was "interrupted" by a person or a noise, either real or perceived, or if he simply panicked & ran off.

But the reason I tend to suspect one of these was the case is that the killer clearly "enjoyed" the abdominal mutilation aspect & it seems likely that he would have taken the mutilation of Polly even farther if he felt he had the chance.

[Ultra Violet]

Hi U.V.!
True, but it wasn`t that cold. I know someone at the inquest said there was a nip in the air that morning but it was August, 56 degrees Fahrenheit.


Yes, but it's not only the temperature that can cause this. Problems with blood circulation due to various factors can cause it. Fear can be a factor, and since aneurysms in the abdominal region can be a factor, I assume the bloodloss could have caused that, too.


He must have been mistaken as death would have been instantaneous, but if Paul did feel movement, Cross did it!Indeed. If I remember correctly after a stab in the carotid artery you have 3 to 8 minutes max before you die. But that was more than a stab, so I think she died faster than that.

I just thought, that Paul may have mistaken the movement from his own pulse as hers.

[Archaic]

Hi, Helga.

I didn't know that fear can be a factor in body temperature; that's interesting.

We often speak of the "chill" of fear, but I didn't know it was something measurable... I'm not sure Polly had time to feel afraid, but it's still an interesting point.

I suspect that at least some of the Ripper's victims were so malnourished and their diets so lacking in iron & protein that they were anemic, and chronic anemia lowers one's body temperature.

>>I wonder if any LVP scientists ever measured the body temperatures of living malnourished, ill-clothed, unhealthy east End female alcoholics so they knew if they deviated from the standard?

Even today, medical standards for tests and 'averages' are often based on men rather than on both men and women, which tends to skew the result.

[How Brown]

Good thread starter, Jon...and nice responses if I may say so.

I'm of two minds on this.

1. He makes the abdominal wound and then is confronted with the odors of Mrs. Nichols' insides. It forces him to abandon his intentions. He certainly adapts by the time of the Chapman murder.

Probability: Less than likely, but possible. I remember the first time I changed a diaper. I had to get the baby's mama to finish that chore. I did not get that opportunity the next time it was my turn. I adapted. I held my breath.

2. Yes, he was interrupted by someone's approach.

I think we take it for granted at times that ONLY Cross went down Bucks Row before the discovery of Mrs. Nichols' torso and then, of course,Paul..... Its entirely possible that someone other than Cross perambulated down the street but was uninterested in the body/thing on the pavement....or did not see it.

Again...good thread Jonny.

[Nemo]

Why didnt the killer manoeuvre her into Woods Alley?

This is the one murder where it seems plain that the Ripper wanted the body displayed in a very public place - right on the street

I think with this killing, there is a possibility that the Ripper over-estimated his speed

He may have felt confident that he only needed a minute or two to kill and mutilate

When he realised that that was pushing it a bit, the future victims were at least off the main streets to give him a few more minutes time

[Archaic]

Hi, Paul; what you say makes a lot of sense.

I agree that the killer wanted Polly's ravaged body on public display, and he also would have preferred a little more time.

How, I don't think that the odors would have revolted him. He wasn't any kind of a normal person, and he clearly enjoyed making a sick bloody mess, with all its attendant features. He could have avoided the intestines if they offended his delicate sensibilities, but he didn't.

[How Brown]

Why didnt the killer manouver her into Woods Alley?--Nemo

This will be turned into a new thread elsewhere. Thanks Nemo.

[Mike Richards]

Hi all,

Since both Phillips and Baxter suggest that the first 2 Canonicals were killed by the same person with the same overall objective, and they specifically mention interruption as the probable cause for the lack of organ excision, it seems we already have a contemporary position on this question. This victim was "discovered" twice, and it would have been 3 times had the initial discovery led that witness to leave the scene for help immediately. They also concluded that the killer moved from the street to a backyard for his next victim so he would have more time alone with the deceased to complete his objectives.....a murder which does include organ extractions.

Its only with the first 2 Canonicals that we hear investigator speculation that the killer sought to obtain abdominal organs as his objective, in Kates case no-one mentions a killer whose objectives were to access and take her kidney, and in Marys case, no-one could possibly suggest that the wounds on her showed any specific interest based on the final outcome.....in that, most of what was done to her would not be required to excise her heart.

I think if Baxter and Phillips were correct in their assessments with the C1 and C2 victims, then we would have some reason to surmise that Pollys murder was incomplete in terms of what they perceived their killer's objectives were. Cross said her hands were cold but her face was warm and Paul thought she might still be breathing. That seems to me to indicate that Cross came upon her shortly after she had started to lose blood.

Best regards all.

[Nemo]

Its only with the first 2 Canonicals that we hear investigator speculation that the killer sought to obtain abdominal organs as his objective

I think if Baxter and Phillips were correct in their assessments with the C1 and C2 victims, then we would have some reason to surmise that Pollys murder was incomplete in terms of what they perceived their killer's objectives were.

I'd agree with much of what you say there Mike

We know with hindsight what the killer went on to do

When killing Polly, his intention may only have been to "rip" her using the contemporary expression

This would only involve inserting the knife in the genital area and ripping upwards - with no intention of doing anything further to the body

I'm not sure if the other knife strokes on the body were, but they appear to be hesitant cuts - not like the fully fledged Ripper at all

When disembowelment was later mentioned in the press and by the public, it may have stimulated him to go much further with his next victim - to exert the greatest reaction of horror from the public

Quite small cuts, in the region of 6" long through which the bowels have protruded have been described in other cases as "disembowelment" but such wounds are quite trivial relative to the Ripper's true disembowelment of his later victims

Organ removal would be a logical extension of this and may imply that the removal of organs was for effect only, not to eat

[Adam Went]

Naturally, since Jack was killing outdoors in all except the MJK murder, in reasonably busy areas of the East End, in every murder he was risking getting interrupted by a policeman or passer-by. It's impossible to say whether he was interrupted in Polly's murder or not, but I don't think so.

If we take Liz Stride's murder out of the equation, where we can be fairly sure that the rattling approach of Louis Diemschutz's cart scared the killer off, every murder increases in its severity (this is including the Martha Tabram murder, who I believe was Jack's first victim.) This can be attributed to the growing confidence of the killer with each murder he got away with.

As Jon said earlier in this thread, Polly was killed on what would have been the last day of the English summer, and it wasn't an overly cold night, so warmth may have stayed in the body for longer than in other cases, thus giving the impression that she hadn't been dead for as long as she really had.

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

Dear Mike:

Not to nitpick, but:

"Its only with the first 2 Canonicals that we hear investigator speculation that the killer sought to obtain abdominal organs as his objective, in Kates case no-one mentions a killer whose objectives were to access and take her kidney,

Actually, Baxter's post-Chapman Inquest reference ( one source is the Times on Sept. 24th ) to the possibility of the killer's objective ( or at least one of them ) being the removal of organs was unnecessary by the time of Eddowes' murder. In the Mitre Square murder,obviously, organs were removed, removing any necessity to contemplate one objective of the killer being the removal of organs.

In short, simply because no one mentioned it being "possible" or "likely" that one of the killer's objectives was the removal of organs in the Eddowes' murder doesn't indicate that they had not taken the previous murder with organ removal into consideration. I would wager that they knew his objective was organ removal without having to say so in print.

Later Mike...

[Mike Richards]

Dear Mike:

Not to nitpick, but:

"Its only with the first 2 Canonicals that we hear investigator speculation that the killer sought to obtain abdominal organs as his objective, in Kates case no-one mentions a killer whose objectives were to access and take her kidney,

Actually, Baxter's post-Chapman Inquest reference ( one source is the Times on Sept. 24th ) to the possibility of the killer's objective ( or at least one of them ) being the removal of organs was unnecessary by the time of Eddowes' murder. In the Mitre Square murder,obviously, organs were removed, removing any necessity to contemplate one objective of the killer being the removal of organs.

In short, simply because no one mentioned it being "possible" or "likely" that one of the killer's objectives was the removal of organs in the Eddowes' murder doesn't indicate that they had not taken the previous murder with organ removal into consideration. I would wager that they knew his objective was organ removal without having to say so in print.

Later Mike...

Hello there Mr B,

I would offer one hedge against the above being more or less likely Howard, and thats Ms C3, the non-ripped but nonetheless thought to be JtR's victim.

Acceptance of that murder in the Canonical Group based on a Ripper theory that includes his having motives to extract and take organs is inexplicable, and although they suggested an interruption in that case as well to explain the lack of tell tale injuries, Liz Stride has to be included based on supposition that sometimes he chooses to just kill his victim....and she was close enough to the Square to make it possible.

I dont think that kind of killer is what Baxter and Phillips were alluding to, and in the case of Polly and Annie, aside for the street vs the backyard, they are almost identical in methodologies and approach. I believe their statements... leaving aside the story Baxter uses to illustrate what he felt was a potential example of impetus for a targeted organ theft like he described.....indicate that they both agreed that Annie was killed so her killer could take the organ he takes, in that all that was done with a knife was to facilitate her death and access and extract that organ quickly. We know in Kates murder, that isnt the case.

If they suggest that the killer in both cases wanted abdominal organs, (in Annie's case they suggest it was the specific organ taken that was coveted), then it does suggest that Mary Anns murder may just have been a poor venue choice and thats why she was buried with all her organs. Cross likely scared him off.

If it was Jacks first victim, the lack of experience and perhaps too large a dose of bravado and daring might address that.

I would agree that in Kate's case what was done to her in terms of intestines...excluding the 2 foot sectioning of colon,...and her midsection were so the killer could access and extract an organ....and since we know he did take a kidney and a partial uterus, we must assume that they were on his shopping list somewhere.

My best regards Howard as always.

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. R:

Thanks very much for elaborating.

First of all, the best I can do, personally, is guess that the fact that both Stride and Eddowes were victims of outdoor throat slashings/murder within a short period of time and that their dabbling into prostitution, another similarity, were among the better reasons for including Stride with her sister murder victims in 1888.

Put differently, the fact is is that we do not know, nor did anyone else for that matter in 1888 know whether Stride was a Ripper victim ( despite my belief or anyone else like me who believes that she was ) yet she was added into the canon ( one of the Bond Girls:playball:) for some reason aside for the removal of the organs. So too was Eddowes.

Taking things into perspective Mike...just to make sure I make this as succinctly as possible...what other reasons could we ascribe to her inclusion other than her profession, throat being slashed, and murdered in the outdoors in a reasonably short distance from another victim ?

In short, Mike, did the authorities consider Stride a "one off" within the canon ? A canonical whose mutilation, for whatever reason,probably an across the board belief in some interruption or the other was prevented...and the timing. Some Ripperologists, admittedly myself, think its just as unlikely that Stride was accosted by two men within a 15 minute period of time as it is that two women were murdered outdoors, with a knife and both being prostitutes within an hour or so. I think it likely that the authorities felt that the intentions were thwarted in Dutfield's Yard and its been expressed in the available literature.

Its a difficult task, but worth pursuing as you've been doing for a while, to try and distance Eddowes from Chapman and Nichols because of some additional features found in that particular murder. I think its not out of the realm of possibility that 3 killers were present in the neighborhood at the same time, not even counting the torso murders perpetrator.

But for my money,Mike, as it stands at the moment, there are enough similarities to me between Eddowes and Chapman to maintain the position that the same killer was the perpetrator regardless of whether or not Baxter mentioned organ removal as a motive linking the murders 5 days or so before the Double Event.

I'm all in favor of revision, Mike, since at times concepts or premises have been presented in the past by those ostensibly trying to counter premises by unconsciously bringing their own beliefs to the fore as facts.

Thanks again for your response. I'm always up for chatting with you dude.

Later

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

far be it from me to resurrect a contentious issue.....but there remains the problem of the fact that Polly, by witness testimony, appears to have managed to either have opened or closed her eye in the time it took between discovery and the police man turning up.

Combining this with the possible heartbeat and maybe warmth and the fact that being cold does not necessarily mean stone dead (and vice versa), I still maintain that there is the possibility that there was a glimmer of life left in her when discovered.

A bit like Coles.

p

[Mr. Poster]

And before anyone asks:

John Neil, police-constable, 97J, said: She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open.

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."

Of course people can argue that Cross doesnt mention eys closed or open but one can surely infer that if her eyes had been open and staring...the confusion over dead or drunk would not have been evident.

Plus...if one finds a woman with her eys open....then would one touch her face at all? Face touching is more something one does with a sleeping person. Plus...what sort of drunk lies on a freezing street with their eyes wide open?

p

[Mr. Poster]

hi Nemo

I didnt know Polly was a cachous muncher as well......

p

[Nemo]

OOps!

Sorry wrong thread - lol :loco:

[Mike Richards]

Howard,

Thanks for elaborating on how you come to see the issue of Canonical associations in the case of Catharine, and I dont dismiss anything you said...however...the physician that examined the first 2 Canonicals sat in on the autopsy of the 4th Canonical, and he later said he felt that the Kates murder was dissimilar to the aforementioned and likely by a different hand.

I know some people consider it to be revisionist when suggesting that the first 2 women were likely killed for specific reasons that are not as obviously present in any later killing...but we do have Phillips remarks to contend with regarding Kate as well as the priors. And both Bagster and Baxters conclusions seem in sync on the first 2.

I realize that this isnt specifically about Polly's killer being interrupted, but it does show that there was serious opinion that those 2 were by the same hand likely with the same objective,... but it was only achieved in the second killing.

All the best Howard

[How Brown]

Mike:

I understand your points. In recognition of what you are trying to get across, look for a thread on this subject in about 3 minutes in the Victim Forum. Lets call it ....Issues With Eddowes As Ripper Victim.

Later Mike.

[Jon Simons]

Hi Mr P

but there remains the problem of the fact that Polly, by witness testimony, appears to have managed to either have opened or closed her eye in the time it took between discovery and the police man turning up.

I can`t find any reference of Paul and Cross reporting that here eyes were shut. Indeed, P.C. Neal required the aid of his lamp to note her eyes were open.

Combining this with the possible heartbeat and maybe warmth and the fact that being cold does not necessarily mean stone dead (and vice versa), I still maintain that there is the possibility that there was a glimmer of life left in her when discovered.


Considering the major damage inflicted, her throat was cut twice, one a four inch wound, the other eight inches. The second incision cut all the tissue down to the vertebrae, severing the large vessels on both sides of her neck.

Such a loss of blood pressure would result in instantaneous death.

[Jon Simons]

Hello all

To support my claim of instantaneous death in the case of Polly Nichols, I came across the following from the Old Bailey records:


FREDERICK PRESTON . I am house surgeon at Poplar Hospital—the prosecutrix was brought there about 11 p.m., with an incised wound on her neck, nine and a half inches long from the right ear—it cut the sternal muscle on the right side, and came below her chin, which was much lacerated—that might be done by his putting his fingers into the wound—it did not cut into the larynx, or it would have killed her—it was dangerous, the anterior jugular vein was cut, but not the main vessels—there was a laceration of the scalp, four and a half inches long, cutting through all the tissues and wounding the bone; an incised wound of the left arm two and a half inches long; a confusion and a small wound on the left elbow; a wound cutting down to the bone on the left hand about two and a half inches long, and another wound on the left hand—they had all been inflicted with a sharp instrument, including the wound on the head—she was in danger for some time—great force had been used—if the inner jugular veins had been severed death would have been instantaneous.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi JOn S

I can`t find any reference of Paul and Cross reporting that here eyes were shut. Indeed, P.C. Neal required the aid of his lamp to note her eyes were open.

Th eproblem being that these two guys were close enough to touch her face (implying that they could find it and were then ... 3 feet? ....from it).

And were also able to surmise they could detect a breath and that certain bits of her were warm.

So one imagines that if they could find those bits and be close enough to detect a breath that they could see if her eyes were open or not.

Yet they were unsure if she was live or dead.

No if she was lying there staring at the heavens I would imagine they didnt think she was anything else but dead (eyes wide open, having trouble detecting a breath etc). But they were indecisive. Suggesting her eyes were closed.

If you came across a woman with her eyes wide open would you touch her face? Or would you be more likely to do it if her eyes were shut?

I reckon I would not touch her at all if she had eyes open. Especially not then.

Its all quite reminiscent of poor Coles..eyes closed, lying dying, someone approaches and she opens an eye.

Nichols....eyes closed, lying dying, someone approaches and she opens her eyes

p

[Mr. Poster]

hi Jon S

if the inner jugular veins had been severed death would have been instantaneous.

I have highlighted the important word in that line.

p

[Jon Simons]

Ah, but Polly`s had been severed, Mr P.

The qouted excerpt refers to another incident, in Limehouse on the 10th Jan 1889, where an unfortunate was attacked.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18890304-315&div=t18890304-315&terms=poplar#highlight

Saw it this morning whilst browsing, and noticed the surgeon`s remarks re instantaneous.

[Mike Richards]

Hi Jon and Mr P,

The question of whether she showed signs of life would indeed impact on the question of how long before that moment the killer had likely left the scene, but Im not sure that it would address whether there were more things the killer had intended to do. Even if she was alive at the time she was found, she did still have the abdominal mutilations, so what that might prove is that he begins his mutilations immediately after the throat cut and before all signs of life are absent.

But is there any reason to suggest by her eyes being open or shut that we would have a better idea of whether his intentions were sated?

For me... Phillips and Baxters opinion that Polly's murder was very probably done by Annie's murderer and for similar if not the same reasons, coupled with an attack, throat cut and "ripping" that seem to mirror the intentions and sequencing of Annie's killer, is enough grounds to surmise that Pollys killer probably did intend to take organs. Which would mean he either got cold feet after opening her abdomen, or he couldnt continue due to passers by.

I dont see cold feet tracks there myself.

My best regards

[Mr. Poster]

Fair enough then Jon S. I will defer.

Out of interest and sheer laziness....was Coles jugular severed ?

p

[Jon Simons]

Hi Mr P.

But, as you say, one does wonder why Cross and Paul seemed so indecisive as to whether Polly was alive or dead.


Out of interest and sheer laziness....was Coles jugular severed ?

I can`t find anything giving such details but Dr Oxley states that there was one incision in the skin and two openings in the larynx, and he thought a blunt knife was used.

[Mr. Poster]

HI ho Jon S.

Maybe they were fudging a bit as they didnt want to be the ones who found a dead body?

Some kind of nervous reaction....stating she may have been alive as they didnt want to be the ones found beside a dead woman?

Or something. Im not sure. BUt indecisive they were. Both of them.

p

[Adam Went]

For two men who probably had little or no medical experience, it's not hard to understand why they were so indecisive. It can happen that the nervous system of a dead person is still active for a short time after life itself is extinct, meaning the body can move or quiver, giving the impression that life is still actually present. I seem to remember reading that one of them thought that they could detect a faint pulse underneath one of her breasts, but then pulled her skirts back down slightly (they had originally been raised to her abdomen, they pulled them back down to her knees) and left - it could be that a nervous movement was mistaken as a faint pulse, perhaps?

Either way, with the injuries that Polly had, as well as any of the other victims, it would be impossible that they could be technically "alive" for more than a matter of seconds after the initial attack.
That's just my opinion though, I'm not a doctor either.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Adam

Your information heightens my sense that if her eyes had been open...they would have registered it. No one...and not in the LVP...adjusts the skirts of a woman or feels under her breast or touches her face with her eyes open. No body. Not when people are hiding the legs of furniture. It would be tantamount to rape.

General question.....we find people like Polly being heaved onto carts etc for transport to the morgue.

To what extent does anyone think that such handling could have confused the medical evidence?

Such as a nicked jugular ending up fully torn due to a head lolling back or whatever?

Not suggesting it....just wondering how being chucked on a wagon could affect evidence.

p

[Mike Richards]

I think an answer to that Mr Poster is in the fact that her head was almost separated from her body and would have had to have been supported when lifting her onto any cart, so the likelihood in Pollys case is that she didnt receive additional wounds from that process at the scene. Her head would have been placed, not plunked...for fear it would detach completely during the move. I would assume the same for Annie and Kate as well.....its possible Mary and rigor presented other issues.

Best regards

[Adam Went]

I would have thought that they would/should have placed the body on a carry-stretcher and then placed it onto the carriage to take to the mortuary, but anyway....

Definitely right, Mr. Poster. Even if the darkness they would have been able to make this detail out.....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Lisa Hendy]

Hello all, I'm about to make my first post and here it goes . . .

I'm currently reading "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" and I was reading the chapter on Polly today. There was something that stuck out that I don't know if it is significant or not.

In Robert Paul's statement - "... as he was passing up Buck's Row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched the witness on the shoulder, and said, 'Come and look at this woman here.'" (Page 46)

As we know the man was Charles Cross. Now to me this sounds as if Paul saw Cross just standing in the middle of the road. Why would Cross not immediately go and find a police officer? Why would he just be standing there? Was it Paul who interrupted Polly's murder? Was Cross thinking "Crap, I've just been caught, maybe I should act like I found the body"?

From what I've read though, Cross was never considered a suspect. But if you ask me when you find a man standing over a dead body - he'd be the first person I'd suspect.

Anyway, that was my first post - hope I don't sound like a complete idiot!

[Nemo]

Hi and welcome to the boards Lisa

That's a good bit of observation

Cross' name has cropped up on the boards before as a suspect , but not with any conviction really

Practically every action and word spoken in this case is open to speculation, and that's a good place to start...

[How Brown]

Dear Lisa:

Welcome to the Forums and thanks for that fine post.
Please don't be shy about presenting ideas at any point.;)

Cross has been suggested as a suspect (by Michael Connor in Ripperologist Magazine, for a quick reference) before. I'll see if I have that to send to you.

An even creepier aspect of that moment in time,Lisa, is when Cross walks up towards Paul, a complete stranger, at that time of morning...with a dead woman a few feet away.

I'll get back to you a.s.a.p. Lisa and thanks again for that post.

Anyone else care to add anything to Ms. Hendy's post here ?

[Adam Went]

Hi Lisa,

Yes, welcome to the forums, and well pointed out.

The behaviour of both the men seems a little strange, actually - including that they took the time to pull her skirts part of the way back down instead of setting off immediately for help.

The only real suggestion I can make is that Cross was numbed and shocked to have discovered a body in such a ghastly condition, and he simply froze on the spot and wasn't sure what to do next.

I'm sure the police would have checked him out at the time as well.
Interesting point, though.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mike Richards]

Thats a good post Lisa and smart police work. Without any clear suspect the person last seen with the victim becomes the primary one.

That seems to be Cross, Shabby Genteel, BSM, Sailor Man and Blotchy Face, in order.

The question was the killer interrupted should be considered with the very next murder...as the coroner and the physician who attended both women did....because based on the absolute similarity with the killer first having subdued the woman fully before laying her down on her back, the severe spine nicking throat cuts and the subsequent opening of the abdomens...the only action that differs is the organ extraction.

Both senior men felt that the venue itself allowed for the interruption, ...sound thinking....and that explained the next venue as a backyard and a completed excision.

My best regards

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lisa, that's a heck of a first post! As Howard mentioned, Michael Connor published some essays in Rip, and prior to that, Derek Osborne wrote about Cross in Ripperana, so you're in good company. Incidentally, a few reports mention small blood drops in the middle of Buck's Row, precisely the spot where Cross would have been standing. Unfortunately, these reports appear to have been false. What I consider to be most valuable about Cross' evidence is the distance at which he first became aware of Paul's presence. This gives us an idea of how far away Cross would have been when the Ripper first heard his approach. I strongly believe the Ripper was close by while Cross and Paul examined the body.

[Jon Simons]

An even creepier aspect of that moment in time,Lisa, is when Cross walks up towards Paul, a complete stranger, at that time of morning...with a dead woman a few feet away.

I have always thought that there may be a clue to Cross`s innocence here, when he touched Paul on the shoulder. Would a man with bloodied hands do this?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Adam

The only real suggestion I can make is that Cross was numbed and shocked to have discovered a body in such a ghastly condition

She cannot have been so ghastly? What with the face touching and everything and thinking she may have been drunk/asleep?

Indeed is it not so that just how ghastly he nether regions were was not revealed until she was slopped out back at th emorgue/shed/whatever it was?

Now if someone asked me....I reckon Cross and the other guy are reacting more like people who have not found a dead body...they have found a body but arent sure it was dead. In fact they possible view death as an outside chance at that point.

Thats why they are so relaxed... "come and look at this woman here." is not what one says when one thinks one has found a body of a murdered woman.

The actions of these two men are perfectly in accordance with them having found what they took to be a possibly drunk, unconcious woman with no signs of mutilation at that point/in that light.

Their conclusions and subsequent actions (face touching, adjusting skirts, arm touching, getting so close to check breathing, seeing a rise of the breast) are also in accordance with them finding a woman, with so signs of mutilation, who may still have been alive and as to whos condition they were ultimately unsure of.

She wasnt in a ghastly condition at all.

p

[Adam Went]

Mr. Poster:

For the most part, I agree with what you say.
We certainly know that many of the people who discovered the bodies of the victims were not aware of how brutally they had been mutilated - it was common for drunk women to sleep anywhere really, and this was the initial reaction.

I believe that it was the Nichols murder where one of the first on the scene at first believed it was some sort of tarpaulin laying on the street.

However, due to the strange behaviour of Cross, I would suggest that he was atleast a little wary of the condition of the woman. Wouldn't want to get caught with her in that position, alive or dead, would you?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Adam

Out of interest and given that....

In modern times it is par for the course that people tend to avoid folk lying in the street and its more recommended to shout "fire" than "help, murder" if you want asisstance.....

I wonder if it is possible that any of the victims were actually "discovered" before we beleive them to be discovered and the discoverer just kept walking?

Some can obviously be eliminated but theoretically Eddowes and Polly and maybe Stride are possible?

If someone else hadnt walked in on him perhaps Cross might have just continued walking and we would be left thinking it was man nr 2 who had found the body or a pc....

p

[Adam Went]

Mr. Poster:

I think that's a good possibility. I know the idea has been floated around before that John Richardson really did find the body of Annie Chapman in the yard when he was there, but didn't want to involve himself. In that instance it's probably not so likely, but there are others where it could have happened. Kate Eddowes is perhaps the most likely, although the fact that she was away in a dark corner of the square with minimal lighting might have prevented anybody that did pass through from spotting her even if she was there.

It's true though that people often don't want to become involved with these things. I think we've all done it, truth be told. You see some sort of argument on the street, etc, you avoid it rather than become involved.

Perhaps when Cross was spotted, he was weighing up whether it was a good idea to check on the condition of the woman or whether he should just move on and leave it to somebody else?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho Adam Went

It's true though that people often don't want to become involved with these things. I think we've all done it, truth be told. You see some sort of argument on the street, etc, you avoid it rather than become involved.

Indeed. Perhaps Schwarz just invented pipeman so he wouldnt appear like such a wuss as he just went upon his way (like many/most of us would).

p

[Colin Roberts]

As Howard mentioned, Michael Connor published some essays in Rip, and prior to that, Derek Osborne wrote about Cross in Ripperana, ...

But, unfortunately, the field of 'Ripperology' has shown little regard for the efforts of these two gentlemen, along with those of Chris Scott, in uncovering the fact that the actual name of the discoverer of Polly Nichols's body was not 'Cross'.

Old habits die hard!

[Tom_Wescott]

I'll stick with Cross. Pretty sure that's it.

[Colin Roberts]

I'll stick with Cross.

I'll stick with LeGrand having never been a contemporary suspect!

[Tom_Wescott]

You do that. And just what do you think Cross' real name was.

[Tom_Wescott]

Born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1849, St Anne's, Soho, son of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa (nee Roulson). In 1858, Charles' mother remarried, to Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took his surname. So, Charles Cross was his "real name", it's the name he went by since the age of 9, it simply wasn't his original name.

[A.P. Wolf]

Tom, who is your supplier? Of information I mean. It has to be someone who doesn't post on the boards much anymore, and has sort of taken you in under their wing, as their proxy voice. It can't be Paul as he already has his.
Who your bitch, boy?

[How Brown]

Simmer down A.P.
Many people are born under one name and have it changed or change it themselves...like say from Webb to Wolf...but we know them as Wolf because thats what they go by.
I don't see the special significance of him having being given and using Cross as a surname since he had been doing that prior to discovering Nichols' body.
If anyone does...please explain.




Jon Simons said:

"I have always thought that there may be a clue to Cross`s innocence here, when he touched Paul on the shoulder. Would a man with bloodied hands do this? "

Very good point Jon...I agree.

[Colin Roberts]

Born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1849, St Anne's, Soho, son of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa (nee Roulson). In 1858, Charles' mother remarried, to Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took his surname. So, Charles Cross was his "real name", it's the name he went by since the age of 9, it simply wasn't his original name.
"So, Charles Cross was his "real name", it's the name he went by since the age of 9, it simply wasn't his original name."

WRONG!

- He appeared as "Lechmere" on his 1849 birth certificate, 1871 marriage certificate and 1920 death certificate; as well as census returns of 1851, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901

- His wife and eight living children (of 1891) all appeared as "Lechmere" in various census returns

- A ninth child (1888-1890) appeared as "Lechmere" on her birth and death certificates

- His only known appearances as "Cross", the name of his stepfather from age eight, occurred in the census returns of 1861 (age 11), and during the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder (age 38)

His name was 'Lechmere'!

You put too much faith in the Casebook Wiki, Tom!

It also states that Lechmere lived at 22 Doveton Street, in "Bethnal Green".

Charles Lechmere lived at 22 Doveton Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town.

[Adam Went]

Mr. Poster:

That's true, although I have wondered in the past why Schwartz did not go and try and find a policeman on the beat, if he was not willing to get involved himself. Clearly he was quite frightened by what had happened, and it was quite serious, so this would seem the logical thing to do.

The only explanation I can come to is the language barrier and being unable to communicate to an officer what he wanted to. Or, that he didn't pass an officer between Berner Street and his home in Ellen Street and chose not to worry about it instead of venturing further out and potentially running into the same man/men again.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's pure speculation, Colin.

[Colin Roberts]

That's pure speculation, Colin.

Are you being serious?

[How Brown]

Colin:

Would you care to amplify on the use of different names if you think its relevant to Cross/Lechmere in any way and the August 31st murder ?

My feeling is, is that if he had used Cross prior to August 31st, it may not be such a big thing. In addition, he may have used the stepfather's name to disassociate (himself &) his family from any mention in the press by the name Lechmere when he appeared at the Nichols Inquest on the second day of those hearings.

[Tom_Wescott]

Are you being serious? No, I'm not.

[Colin Roberts]

... if he had used Cross prior to August 31st, ...
Again;


- He appeared as "Lechmere" on his 1849 birth certificate, 1871 marriage certificate and 1920 death certificate; as well as census returns of 1851, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901

...

- His only known appearances as "Cross", the name of his stepfather from age eight, occurred in the census returns of 1861 (age 11), and during the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder (age 38)

---

... he may have used the stepfather's name to disassociate (himself &) his family from any mention in the press by the name Lechmere when he appeared at the Nichols Inquest on the second day of those hearings.
That is indeed, quite possible!

My whole point, Howard, is that this man's name was 'Lechmere'; and that continued use of the name 'Cross', throughout the field of 'Ripperology', smacks of complacency, stagnancy, and a complete lack of respect for the efforts of those, who uncovered his true identity.

[Colin Roberts]

One last note, regarding Charles Lechmere, a.k.a. 'Charles Cross':

If my name were 'Lechmere', and people went around pronouncing it lech-mir, as was done in one of the 'Rippercast' episodes; I think I would go by an alias, as well.

Surely, … surely, … surely, the name is pronounced lek-mir.

[How Brown]

Thanks for that Colin.