Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

No need to run, and why worry about being heard - which wasn't guaranteed - when there were escape routes so close at hand? Better to get away than remain with a woman whose throat and belly you've just ripped open, I'd suggest.

If Cross was in a position to have got up, rearranged Polly's clothing and distanced himself from the body on the approach of Paul, then the latter must have been much further away when Cross first became aware of him. That being the case, he'd have had even more of a head-start than 40 yards, making it even easier for him to get away.

As to Andy Griffiths, whilst I don't doubt his qualifications, I don't think he's any better placed to pronounce on whether Cross would/wouldn't have got the hell out of there than anybody else.

You are welcome to suggest your take on things, as long as you realize that others are just as welcome to disagree.

I agree that Lechmere would have had much more time than what is afforded by a 40 yard distance. I think he had much more than so, going on how I think he took his time to (possibly) arrange the body and (decidedly) hide the wounds. And I still say that he was quite likely to stay put, and Griffiths still agrees with me.

And yes, I think Griffiths is much more qualified to judge these matters than the average person - that is the whole idea behind using experts, they have qualifications that surpass ours.
As I said, there is no certainty that he was correct, but letīs not try and put ourselves on par with him when it comes to insights into the behaviour of killers.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gary,

When you put it like that, it's obviously very far from absurd. What I was trying to get at was that in the 19th century times were that much harder for working class men in the poorest areas, especially those with families to feed, which tended to be much larger too. Violent behaviour, such as gang fights, muggings or domestic abuse, often leading to a criminal record, would have been one thing. But the murder and mutilation of several penniless women over a period of weeks, for no apparent motive apart from the sheer hell of it, was surely quite another. Seems more akin to an indulgence, like a newly discovered hobby or pastime - one which involved going out on the hunt equipped with a newly sharpened knife, actively seeking out a suitable victim to go willingly to a suitable location, before his singular taste for violence could even begin. While the ripper was active, I doubt his thoughts strayed much beyond doing his thing and getting away with it. It's not as if there were long gaps of weeks, months or years between the main five murders, when he could have put his family and work higher up on his list of priorities.

This is why I would be looking for someone who had made damned sure his responsibilities were few and would not cramp his chosen lifestyle, or restrict his activities and freedom to come and go as he pleased: someone temporarily unemployed perhaps, or his own boss, or a casual labourer with only his own mouth to feed, who was free at night to roam the streets for as long as it took, without anyone to answer to. A likely user of prostitutes, whose thoughts would only turn to murdering and mutilating one when he didn't have to be anywhere else in a hurry, such as work, or home to the wife and kids.

That doesn't rule Lechmere out, but I would be very surprised if the killer was someone like him, with personal responsibilities he appeared to take seriously.

Love,

Caz
X

If you look at the ones caught, Iīd say that they can be roughly categorized in two groups:

1. Drifters with no ties, like Henry Lee Lucas, Ottis Toole, Carl Panzram, Danny Rolling and the likes of them.

2. Men who were seemingly well adjusted to society, like Russell Williams, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgway, Peter Sutcliffe, Joseph De Angelo, Dennis Rader, John Eric Armstrong, Keith Hunter Jesperson, Andrei Chikatilo, Robert Yates, Robert Hansen and so on.

The latter group seems to me to be larger than the former, and in it, there are certainly people with evisceration interests.

Plus letīs keep Robert Resslers words about how he thought the typical serial killer was a family man in his thirties, with a steady job and kids, in mind.

I am certain that most of us picture "their" Ripper in many varying shapes and forms. And as long as we do not have him in custody, so to speak, none can be proven wrong - or right. But we CAN see that family men with steady jobs are not less likely at all to become serial killers than drifters and loners.

[Sam Flynn]

2. "Damn it! Some idiot is drawing close! Should I run? No, he will hear it, and if he raises the alarm, I will be in all sorts of trouble if a copper hears it and sees me".

No need to run, and why worry about being heard - which wasn't guaranteed - when there were escape routes so close at hand? Better to get away than remain with a woman whose throat and belly you've just ripped open, I'd suggest.

If Cross was in a position to have got up, rearranged Polly's clothing and distanced himself from the body on the approach of Paul, then the latter must have been much further away when Cross first became aware of him. That being the case, he'd have had even more of a head-start than 40 yards, making it even easier for him to get away.

As to Andy Griffiths, whilst I don't doubt his qualifications, I don't think he's any better placed to pronounce on whether Cross would/wouldn't have got the hell out of there than anybody else.

[Fisherman]

I think that the main risk is in getting caught.

Exactly so. And the best way not to get caught for killing is not to kill.

[Fisherman]

That is an equally baffling thing for him to have said; who is Andy Griffiths to decide what Cross wouldn't, or couldn't, do? Of course it's possible that Cross would have walked away, if he'd decided to do so.

Yes, it was possible to walk or run away, and nobody has said anything else. If Lechmere was the killer, then he CHOSE to stay. What reasoning he based it on is hard to say, which can be exemplified by suggesting two options:

1. "Here comes somebody! Good! It will be fun conning him, and if he makes problems, Iīll kill him".

2. "Damn it! Some idiot is drawing close! Should I run? No, he will hear it, and if he raises the alarm, I will be in all sorts of trouble if a copper hears it and sees me".

As you will understand, there are many more wordings that can be suggested.

On the question of who Griffiths is to say that he would not have run, the answer is presented on the site of Portsmouth University:

A police officer with twenty seven years service. Has operational experience as a detective at all ranks. Also has extensive experience of criminal investigation training design, delivery and policy implementation. This includes development and delivery of specialist interview training, and a significant contribution to development of strategic interview policy both in the UK and abroad, including representing the National Policing Improvement Agency in France, Canada and South Korea. Completed his doctorate part-time supported by a Bramshill fellowship, and has since published several papers on investigative interviewing. He still trains police officers, as well as lecturing under and post-graduate students and is also advising on several international research projects. In 2010 he was awarded the Senior Practitioner award by the International Investigative Interview Research Group (iIIRG).

The whole site, giving insight into his writings and education and many more things is here: http://www.port.ac.uk/centre-of-fore...griffiths.html

Does all of this mean that he must have been right about Lechmere and if he would have run? No.

Does it mean that he is extremely well qualified to make a useful guess about it? Yes.