Charles Cross The Witness Who Has Been Under Our Nose All The Time. Is This Jack the Ripper?25/11/2017
What Was The Autumn Of Terror?
The Autumn of Terror was a collection of events which happened throughout the Autumn of 1888, in Whitechapel London. These events were a series of murders which happened from August 1888 up until November 1888. The murders were carried out by the serial killer, Jack the Ripper. But who was Jack the Ripper? For almost 130 years, the identity of the infamous Victorian serial killer has been shrouded in mystery. If you buy into the royal conspiracy theory, then some would say that it has been deliberately shrouded in secrecy. It's not just the royals, or those who served the royal family at the time, that have been linked to this Victorian historical true crime mystery. It seems that everyone and anyone who was alive during the events has been named as a Jack the Ripper suspect. The suspect list is endless. But, perhaps it didn't and doesn't need to be. Perhaps Jack the Ripper has been under our nose all of the time. Perhaps, Jack the Ripper was the very first man linked to the Ripper case - Charles Cross.
Amazon
Who Was Charles Cross?
Charles Cross or Charles Lechmere, as he also known, was the man who found the first woman who was murdered by the ripper - Mary Ann Nichols. Mary Ann Nichols was murdered in the early morning hours of the 31st of August in Bucks Row, Whitechapel. It's estimated that she was murdered at around 3.30am, according to Dr Henry Llewellyn, who was sought for when Mary Ann Nichols boy was found. Her body was found at 3.40am by Charles Cross, several minutes later, Dr Henry Llewellyn was called to the scene of the crime by the police. He lived not far away from the scene. Why Is Charles Cross A Suspect? Charles Cross was the first person to find Mary Ann Nichols. He was a cart driver who was on his way to work that morning. Soon after Cross found Nichols, another man was walking along Bucks Row, his name was Robert Paul. This is where suspicion arises, according to Robert Paul at the inquest into Mary's murder, on the 1st of September 1888, Paul said that he was walking down Bucks Row when he saw Charles Cross standing in the middle of the road, looking at the body of Mary who was lying on the ground.
From this, we should take Cross as a strong person of interest. He was found near the body of a woman that was still breathing when Paul reached her and she had just been murdered. Surely this should make him on the top of the suspects list?
However, if Cross was Jack the Ripper, why did he just stand there? There's evidence, or strong suspicion, that Jack the Ripper fled quickly from the crime scene, this is apparent from both Elizabeth Stride's murder and Catherine Eddowes murder. We can assume from both of these murders, that Jack didn't stay around long. He even went so far as to flee the scene of the crime when he must have heard the cart of Louis Diemschutz entered into Dutfield's Yard. With the murder of Catherine Eddowes, the ripper didn't hang about there either. We know this from the times of police patrols in Mitre Square, where the murdered body of Catherine Eddowes was found.
Amazon
Therefore, given the way that Jack behaved during the murders of both Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes, it doesn't fit with the behaviour of Charles Cross.
There are other reasons that Charles Cross ignites suspicion. For example, Cross lied about two things to the police that morning of the murder of Nichols. The first thing that he lied about, was his name. He gave his name as Charles Cross, not Charles Lechmere, which was his real name. This isn't odd for the time though, which we should take into consideration. The victims of Jack the Ripper were also known by second names, such as Polly Nichols, Dark Annie and Long Liz. It seemed to be a common thing for the time - to go by a second name, a nickname. Therefore, it doesn't seem like something that we should look too deeply into. But another thing that comes to the fore, is that Charles Cross may have lied about something else that morning. According to PC Mitzen, Cross said to him that either '"You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." Or, "You're wanted down there (pointing to Buck's row)." Whichever one Cross had said, there is difficulty with them both. The first phrase is difficult in believing Cross because there was no policeman when Cross and Paul had left Bucks Row to find the police. The second phrase is difficult because it seems an odd way to say that a policeman is needed.
Amazon
It would be more natural for Cross to say, 'You are needed down there...', it would be more natural because that's how it would naturally be said. To say that 'you are wanted down there', suggests that Cross had already met someone who wanted him in Bucks Row. We know this isn't true.
Again, we could be reading to much into it. What if Cross was just shocked? What if he was still tired and shocked about what he found? Perhaps it was just the way that he spoke. The last reason that we have to suspect Charles Cross, is his route to work every morning. According to the documentary, it says that Cross could be placed at the scene of the crimes of all of the murders because they were on his route to work.
There are two problems with this, which the documentary does address with one of the problems. Two of the murders weren't exactly on Cross's route to work. The murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were someone knocked off his usual route. But, there is an answer that the documentary has for this, that Cross's mother lived near where those two murders happened.
It does bring suspicions towards Cross again. He probably was walking by where the murders happened. But, given that we don't know his route to work every morning for those five Jack the Ripper murders, it is impossible to say that he was walking in the same street as each of the murders happened. What if he took a different street? There would have been thousands of people taking the same route to work every morning, walking up and down those streets getting from a to b, they couldn't have all been Jack the Ripper. So, saying he was in the area isn't enough to convict him. Which leads us to the second problem, there is no evidence that links him to any of the other murders. Cross wasn't found at any of the other murder sites. Where is the evidence of him being found at the scene of Annie Chapman's murder? Elizabeth Stride's murder? Catherine Eddowes murder? or Mary Jane Kelly's murder? There is none. That is as significant as finding him near the body of Mary Ann Nichols. Conclusion Charles Cross is certainly an interesting suspect to consider. He was found at the scene of the first murder, he lied about his name, he probably lied about the fact the there was already a policeman there and, the murders were on his route to work. This should make him one of our leading suspects. There is more against Cross than most of the other ripper suspects. Where Cross falls down, is the fact that there isn't enough evidence to say that Cross was the ripper. Why didn't he flee the scene of the crime, like Jack had done with other murders? Why didn't he take Paul out? Cross lived into the 20th century, so why did he just stop killing, if he was Jack the Ripper? There isn't enough evidence to say that Cross was Jack the Ripper. What can be said about him is that he is one of the more interesting suspects in the case and should be a strong person of interest, given that he was found at the scene of the crime. Though, what about the other people who found the other ripper victims? Other people found Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly. If we treat Cross as a suspect, then, shouldn't we count the others as a suspect? They couldn't have all been Jack the Ripper. Sources: Casebook.org Jack the Ripper.org
4 Comments
Andrew Dabrowski
30/9/2018 00:34:34
After having been caught at the scene of the Nichols murder, Jack would realized he couldn't afford to caught at another. Hence his determination to flee all all later crime scenes.
Reply
Anders Haneskog
31/10/2019 00:30:28
Cross (or Lechmere as his real name was) was taking for a surprise. He did not hear when Paul came. Lechmere was probably to busy with killing the woman - and he just did not have the time to get away. IF he would have run away at that point - he would have been spotted by Paul and Paul would certainly realized it was him who did it. So he decided quickly in a split of a second - to stay, take 2 steps back into the street and pretend he just found the victim. When Paul saw the victim he never saw any blood and he wanted to pick her up to a sitting position. Lechmere said he did not wanted to do that. Why? Lechmere knew that if they would have done that Paul would have noticed the blood and perhaps the head would have tilted unnaturally because the head was almost off... Noone saw any blood at that point. When they had left - to go looking for a cop - another cop found the victim and AT THAT MOMENT he saw blood. So the vctim was so incredible freshly killed when Lechmere and Paul saw her that blood had not yet started to pour out of her body in big amounts (reason was that a dead body (chocked to death) do not spurt blood after being cut with a knife because the heart is not pumping blood - therefor not strong bloodpressure...blood is just seeping out). So Cross (Lechmere) killed her and had no time to evacuate so he pretended to be a witness. IF he was a real witness he would certainly have seen the murderer...so close to the death were the 2 men....
Reply
T. G.
2/1/2022 04:36:43
I thoroughly agree with Anders. Also, the question as to whether thousands of people living in the area (other than Charles Lechmere) could have been Jack the Ripper I think can be answered by this: how many of those people also shared all of the following circumstances: 1) they were ‘seen’ standing next to the body of Mary Ann Nichols. 2) they worked in the early morning hours when prostitutes were out looking for clients 3) their path to work to them close to several of the Ripper’s victims 4) and the double event was in an area where they once lived (and now was where their mother was living.)
Reply
T.G.
2/1/2022 04:07:29
I thoroughly agree with Anders. Also, the question as to whether thousands of other people living in the area of the murders could also be considered to be Jack the Ripper come down to this: how many of those people shared all the following circumstances: 1) they were ‘seen’ standing next to the body of Mary Ann Nichols. 2) they’re worked in the early morning hours when prostitutes were looking for clients 3) they’re path to work took them close to where several of the Ripper’s victims were found 4) and the double event was also in an area where they once lived (and was now an area where their mothers lived.)
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2023
Categories
All
← Resize me
|