Who was the first clothes-puller?

[curious]

Who could ask for a better reason, Lynn? Or, indeed, one more aptly named?

The best,
Fisherman

I'm curious whether or not there was a stressor event for C/L in 1888 that might have parcipitated the killings?

[lynn cates]

conundrum

Hello Velma. Well, given the personality type posited by Christer, one might look for some conundrum at home or, perhaps better, work.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

That would imply that Cross chose the venue, rather than Annie. But of course in that case, Cross would be taking a risk if he committed a murder at a house where he was possibly known.

If he did know the house, he knew he could likely find someone sleeping in the hallway inside. Apparently, it was a common practice.

Annie had sold crochet work to Mrs. Richardson, so she also knew the house, was sick and extremely tired. I have believed for some time now that she went to 29 Hanbury so she could sleep there and just happened to meet her killer.

In this case, both would have chosen the location.

[curious]

Hello Velma. Well, given the personality type posited by Christer, one might look for some conundrum at home or, perhaps better, work.

Cheers.
LC

Or even that caused his daughter to live with his mother . . . wonder how long standing that was?

[lynn cates]

hum drum

Hello Velma. Seems we know little about this.

The problem with Cross may be the same as with Toppy (and which causes him to be eschewed by some as Hutch), namely, that he seems to have lived a hum drum life afterwards.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

I am reminded that Red Grant the Spectre villain (played by Robert Shaw in the film) in the train scene in ‘From Russia With Love’ kept on calling Bond ‘Old Man’. It was a clue to Bond that Red Grant was a baddie as a well bred British secret agent wouldn’t use such a vulgar term,
This possibly ties in with theories about the Russian Secret Service being involved in the Ripper killings. No?

If we read Paul’s statement to the press made on the Friday evening, it is clearly self serving and bigs up his own role and makes it sound that he was the main player.
However Mizen focuses on his conversation with Cross not Paul, whereas Paul in his press interview will have us believe that he played the major role. However at the inquest Paul make it sound like he played second fiddle to Cross. Cross also claims to have done most of the talking to Mizen. Taken in conjunction with Paul feeling intimidated by Cross when they first met, I think it is clear that Cross was the dominant of the two and that Cross led the conversation withy Mizen.

As for Cross and Paul splitting up – had they not met Mizen at the junction of Hanbury Street, Old Montague Street and Bakers Row, then maybe they would have gone their separate ways there and then. We don’t know. They met Mizen by chance very soon after leaving the crime scene.

On Cross being a clever carman – I suspect he was. He retired as a carman and started what seems to have been a successful grocers business.

Sally – I have the marriage certificate for Thomas Cross and he clearly was 23 when he married in 1858 and I also have the copy of the census in 1861 – he was listed as 26 not 36.

The daughter lived her entire life with the grandmother.

The thing I will emphasise about Cross- Lechmere as the culprit is that he can be made to fit all the known murder sites and also the apron site. He moved to a new address just before the attacks started. He has a plausible reason to end the attacks. He has potential reasons for resentment in his background that are common to serial killers. When his behaviours around the Polly Nicholls case are examined in detail then they can all look suspicious and be made to show the likelihood of guilt.
Obviously alternative explanations are possible.
However try to find another Ripper suspect who can be made to fit everything as well as Cross-Lechmere. You won’t!
Conjecture, joining up the dots, leaps of faith etc etc are the common currency in the world of Ripper suspects.

[Lechmere]

Sally
I also have Thomas Cross's death certificate - he is listed as 34 when he died in 1869.
Also Charles Alan Lechmere married the illiterate Elizabeth Bostock in 1870. Her father was Thomas Bay Bostock who was also illiterate - but notice was also called Thomas.

[Sally]

Exactly so.

The problem with Cross may be the same as with Toppy (and which causes him to be eschewed by some as Hutch), namely, that he seems to have lived a hum drum life afterwards.

I think there are a few problems with Cross - I'm not saying it's a total washout, but I think as a theory it has a lot further to go than some are assuming here.

At a fundamental level - the Ripper stopped but Cross didn't. He carried on doing what we know he had done before - he carried on working as a carman; he lived with his wife and children; never moving very far away.

So if you want Cross to be the Ripper you have a lot of explaining to do - ordinary people don't suddenly start eviscerating prostitutes; carry on for a while and then stop one day and never start again. In fact, that sound entirely implausible to me unless he was doing it for money - Enter Conspiracy Theory Stage Left..

Or let's try this - If Cross was the Ripper, he appears to have gone from being a steady sort - married young, worked for Pickfords and stayed at Picfords, provided for his family: to Prostitute Eviscerator of the Year, cunning evil killer and incredible Risk Taker; and then back to steady old Cross again.

What are we saying - temporary aberration?

In reality, the sum total of what this idea has in its favour is opportunity. Cross lives in the area, he could have passed the murder sites if he went the right way at the right time. By itself, that doesn't mean very much; since it would have been true for countless individuals. It only has weight if Cross is guilty.

Other than that, he's the first witness at the Nichols scene, which yes, ties him to the scene. But as others have argued to good effect already, for every single accusation of guilt in his actions, a counterargument for innocence also exists - including for the 'nameswop' - I'm amazed that nobody has yet drawn the obvious conclusion about that.

There is nothing in his character that we know of - at least, nothing that we've seen to date - to imply that he might have been inclined to any personality disorder; mental health problems; hatred of women; or sexual problems - quite the opposite in fact. To all extents and purposes, the record demonstrates a hardworking, decent individual.

There is nothing to suggest that he 'resented' either of his stepfathers; or that his mother was 'domineering' Those inferences are speculations without basis in any demonstrable reality.

And of course, this is not a new theory - it's been around for the last decade. The problems with it now are the same as always - Cross may well have been well placed geographically to kill a few prostitutes; but nothing else that we know of him supports that theory whatsoever.

It's a shame, I quite hoped to see something new for a change.

[Sally]

Sally
I also have Thomas Cross's death certificate - he is listed as 34 when he died in 1869.
Also Charles Alan Lechmere married the illiterate Elizabeth Bostock in 1870. Her father was Thomas Bay Bostock who was also illiterate - but notice was also called Thomas.

Well then Lech, we have a discrepancy don't we? So unless we have other corroborative evidence, we can't say that he was either 36 in 1861 or 34 in 1869.

However, if he had been 36 in 1861, he would of course have been 44 8 years later. Maybe the 3 should have been a 4?

As for the other Thomas - ok, fair enough - but we're in the same situation as above, aren't we, because we can't say which Thomas young Thomas was named after. Maybe both.

We certainly can't suggest that Cross 'resented' his stepfather as anything other than pure conjecture, since nothing exists to support that premise - unless you have independent evidence to the contrary?

[Bridewell]

Conjecture

Conjecture, joining up the dots, leaps of faith etc etc are the common currency in the world of Ripper suspects.

Agreed - and Cross @ Lechmere is no exception.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Reserving the right to keep an open mind on the subject, and having weighed things both ways, for what it's worth I'm currently with Sally...

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

[ATTACH]13521[/ATTACH]

Sally – I have the marriage certificate for Thomas Cross and he clearly was 23 when he married in 1858 and I also have the copy of the census in 1861 – he was listed as 26 not 36.

Sorry, Lech - looks like 36 to me.

[Lechmere]

Try as you might Sally, Thomas Cross was born in 1835.
By the way Charles Allen Lechmere's maternal grandfather was called Thomas Roulson. Another Thomas.

[lynn cates]

old man

Hello Lechmere. Regarding "old man" and the secret service, don't forget the "Danger Man" episode, "Yesterday's Enemies" in which the hired assassin referred to Drake by that epithet.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

God Lynn...you'll be telling us next you're a member of 6 of 1 and be quoting "The Prisoner" at us next...

Dave