So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[Batman]

If he did kill her, that same reason might still apply, but another, even more crucial reason might pertain.

It doesn't logically work. He wants to keep his identity out of the paper in your view... but he waits for a witness to come to up to him from down the other end of Buck's row in the dark and ends up being identified and reports his name to an officer?

Do you not see the contradiction of motives here? He goes from waiting around to be identified when he need not have to do so and then a few minutes later is avoiding being identified by not giving details in a suspicious way (according to you)?

[Batman]

Also, I have yet to see addressed the problem that he was re-visiting the scene of the crimes daily at the hour they died.

The model doesn't have him just going passed Buck's Row, Hanbury St., and Dorset St., once, but doing so on a daily bases at the same hour the women were murdered.

Yet over the weeks investigating, not a single one of them notices this person at all 3 sites, at the right hours?

[harry]

Keeping the name Lechmere out of the papers would not have hidden the identity of the man who found Nichols body,because that man made himself known to both the press and the authorities,and could easily have been located by the police at his home or at work.Whatever the intent,the use of the name Cross does not ,in any way,show Cross was the person who killed Nichols.

If a person has an exclusive claim of being the only one to match a particular charasteristic,such as Charles Cross access to the ripper murder sites,then the person/persons making that claim,has the responsibility to justify that claim,by showing that only that person,to the exclusion of all others,possessed that exclusive element.

So far he has been matched against a few individuals.A few hundred thousand still to go.

[Abby Normal]

Abby,who says Cross was ever on the police radar as a suspect? I don't recall him being suspected by any Police officer ever [unlike Sutcliffe]. I wonder why that is.

Hi DK
Me and sam were talking in general terms.
Because he was never a suspect.

[MrBarnett]

Also, I have yet to see addressed the problem that he was re-visiting the scene of the crimes daily at the hour they died.

The model doesn't have him just going passed Buck's Row, Hanbury St., and Dorset St., once, but doing so on a daily bases at the same hour the women were murdered.

Yet over the weeks investigating, not a single one of them notices this person at all 3 sites, at the right hours?

So what are you suggesting, that the early morning journey via Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street was a one-off? That he didn’t live in Doveton Street or work at Broad Street? He must have done, surely.

Of course we don’t know whether he had the same start time every morning, picking up goods from the same train each day, but he didn’t have much in the way of alternative routes from home to work that didn’t bring him close to the murder sites.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

By those who had the inquest reports read to them, did you have the former Miss Bostock in mind?

Gary

As a possibility, definitely. But I cannot possibly know how Charles´ circle of aquaintances looked back in 1888. There can be any person he wanted to keep in the dark, as well as if he may have aimed at every person.

I don´t exclude that the former miss Bostock knew or suspected about him, for example. These things are not given in any way, an so I try not to nail my colours to any mast.

It´s a bit like the Stride/Berner Street affair, where most people think that I have sworn that he visited his ma on the murder night. It is a possibility of many, but by no means any certainty. It stands out, since he had his daughter there, but he may just as well have popped over to his old chum Mr X for a beer or two, and gotten in the mood for killing during that meeting. The much more important thing is his overall ties to St Georges.

Similarly, it is a possibility that he wanted to hide his link to the Nichols murder from the former miss Bostock - but it is not as if there is a shortage of other possibilities!

[Fisherman]

Except it is a half hour walk home for Cross from Aldgate [and that is not including the half hour he could have been hanging around]. How long do you give the killer to be out and about with a bloody knife and Kidney?

But it is a seven minute walk to Pickfords, Darryl.

As I say, if a killer was willing and ready to walk the streets with a kidney and a bloody knife on his person, that only goes to show that he was prepared to take that kind of risk. Whether it involved a ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty minute walk would have been of less importance, I think. Once you accept the risk of doing that kind of a walk for a significant amount of time, that is pretty much all there is to it.

[MrBarnett]

Keeping the name Lechmere out of the papers would not have hidden the identity of the man who found Nichols body,because that man made himself known to both the press and the authorities,and could easily have been located by the police at his home or at work.Whatever the intent,the use of the name Cross does not ,in any way,show Cross was the person who killed Nichols.

If a person has an exclusive claim of being the only one to match a particular charasteristic,such as Charles Cross access to the ripper murder sites,then the person/persons making that claim,has the responsibility to justify that claim,by showing that only that person,to the exclusion of all others,possessed that exclusive element.

So far he has been matched against a few individuals.A few hundred thousand still to go.

It would have done to someone who only knew him by the name of Lechmere.

Is that how a police investigation might work, do you think? They find someone connected to a string of murder sites, but before considering him a suspect they trawl through the electoral registers etc to see if anyone else has the same geographical profile?

[Fisherman]

Yet we have an example of a dark thoroughfare [Bucks Row], which people were averse to going down in the small hours, being traversed by two people in a matter of minutes.

What about the house to house inquiry? Yes, they didn't search the dwellings but that's not for the want of trying. Anderson - if we had the same powers as the French police force etc.

Lechmere and Paul and Neil and the dwellers of Bucks Row all said that it was a perfectly quite night with nobody on the streets. Lechmere, Paul and Neil testified that they saw not a living soul on the back streets and met noone.

House to house inquiries are not equivalent to searching the houses. And it stands that there is no record of any such measure being taken, relating to the Eastenders out on the streets.

And hopefully, I won´t have to repeat this once more. There really is not more to say in the errand.

[Fisherman]

Keeping the name Lechmere out of the papers would not have hidden the identity of the man who found Nichols body,because that man made himself known to both the press and the authorities,and could easily have been located by the police at his home or at work.Whatever the intent,the use of the name Cross does not ,in any way,show Cross was the person who killed Nichols.

If a person has an exclusive claim of being the only one to match a particular charasteristic,such as Charles Cross access to the ripper murder sites,then the person/persons making that claim,has the responsibility to justify that claim,by showing that only that person,to the exclusion of all others,possessed that exclusive element.

So far he has been matched against a few individuals.A few hundred thousand still to go.

See post 387

[Fisherman]

It doesn't logically work. He wants to keep his identity out of the paper in your view... but he waits for a witness to come to up to him from down the other end of Buck's row in the dark and ends up being identified and reports his name to an officer?

Do you not see the contradiction of motives here? He goes from waiting around to be identified when he need not have to do so and then a few minutes later is avoiding being identified by not giving details in a suspicious way (according to you)?

Maybe you should take the thinking process a wee bit further.

His main objective was to kill a woman.

A secondary objective will have been not to get caught.

If he felt that running and leaving Paul to yell blue murder could get him caught, he may have decided to stay put and bluff it out.

On deciding to do so, he may not have foreseen that he soon would be facing a PC and an inquest. He may have thought that the newcomer would mind his own business and that neither he himself or the newcomer would ever be known to have been with the body before the police.

He was not able to predict exactly what would happen, but instead he had to go along with the developments in as smooth a manner as possible.

As I say, taking the thinking process a bit beyond the surface is sometimes a healthy exercise.

[Fisherman]

It would have done to someone who only knew him by the name of Lechmere.

Is that how a police investigation might work, do you think? They find someone connected to a string of murder sites, but before considering him a suspect they trawl through the electoral registers etc to see if anyone else has the same geographical profile?

Can you send a copy of that question to Batman and Gareth, please?

[MrBarnett]

It doesn't logically work. He wants to keep his identity out of the paper in your view... but he waits for a witness to come to up to him from down the other end of Buck's row in the dark and ends up being identified and reports his name to an officer?

Do you not see the contradiction of motives here? He goes from waiting around to be identified when he need not have to do so and then a few minutes later is avoiding being identified by not giving details in a suspicious way (according to you)?

His name did not get into the papers, so that worked.

You may question whether it is plausible that a killer almost caught in the act might brazen it out. I think it is. Abbey provide a real life example of a criminal doing just that and I have one of my own. But I don’t see why having done so would mean he could have had no possible reason for wanting to keep his real name out of the papers.

[Darryl Kenyon]

But it is a seven minute walk to Pickfords, Darryl.

Didn't Pickfords employ a lot of people? In the type of business they were in I think it is safe to assume they would have had a skeleton staff on at weekend even if it were just security. So wouldn't they want to know what Cross was doing there on his day off in the middle of the night? {Hi lads just called in for a brew?] And if no one was there [ which I doubt], how did he get in the building? Did they give a key to every employee.
Far likely if Jack had a bolt hole near Mitre it was private premises like a small shop for instance, which he had a key to and which he knew would be empty.

As for it being quiet, yes it probably was to normal victorian nights, Walter Purkiss said it was unusually quiet. But we still have people out and about going to work etc. Paul, Cross, the slaughtermen in the next street, Polly, Pc Neil

[Batman]

Maybe you should take the thinking process a wee bit further.

His main objective was to kill a woman.

A secondary objective will have been not to get caught.

If he felt that running and leaving Paul to yell blue murder could get him caught, he may have decided to stay put and bluff it out.

He waited for Paul in the darkness but could hear his footsteps. He called Paul over to him when he could see him. Paul didn't want to go. Paul required convincing to go over.

That clashes with your secondary objective.

The fact is that in this incident Cross has all the time in the world to get away, but didn't, and that is inexplicable.