Viability of Charles Cross as the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Yes, whaddayouknow: People seem to reach their stances as they move along. That must mean that I was not born believing in Lechmere as the Ripper, and only arrived at that conclusion later in life.

Who would have thought it?

PS. You can find posts where I argue that Stride was probably not a Ripper victim too, if you put your mind to it. DS.

[drstrange169]

>> What compelled you to bump a thread from over a decade?<<

I assume, because NBFN found it contains pre-convertion Christer.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman argues well here, that Charles Cross is not the Ripper.
However, he overlooks a critical issue.





The critical issue being: The first man to use the word 'exactly', in reference to time, wins the argument.

Apparently, a key witness using the word 'exactly' when stating a time, has such a powerful effect that it effectively overrides the related times, stated by experienced police constables, as well as responsible members of the public.

The effect of this word is even more powerful when combined with a claim to have very recently observed a clock, prior to the incident in question, as is the case with Diemschitz.

If Paul had said 'It was about a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work...', and Diemschitz had said '[I] returned home around one o'clock on Sunday morning', Ripperology might have evolved very differently.

In each of these cases, we should be aware of how the pseudo-precision of these statements has had the effect of manipulating perceptions, and creating false realities.

Was this done purposely, in each case? I think most likely, yes.

I regard Robert Paul as a suspicious character.

No, it does not mean that you are right when you add "exactly" to a timing. But since Paul did say "exactly", it would be odd if he was not working from a timepiece, and therefore his timing becomes more credible than it would have been if he had said "I think it may have been 3.45 or thereabouts" or something such.

It really is not very hard at all. "Exactly" - makes a correct timing more credible but does not guarantee it. "Thereabouts" - makes a timing less credible that "exactly" does - but may nevertheless be more correct in practice.

The real problem here is that an effort is made to make me look as if I spread falsehoods and make claims that cannot be substantiated. But I don´t. I am not saying that Pauls "exactly" guarantees that he was right, the way that you try to lead on in your post. I am saying that it enhances the probability that he was right on account of how it seems he had made a check with a timepiece.

It is basically two different ways of doing Ripperology. You either try to make your case as best as you can, going on the facts. Or you distort what people who do that are saying. Apparently, you prefer the latter approach.

[John Wheat]

What compelled you to bump a thread from over a decade?

I just noticed Fisherman had contradicted himself which I found amusing

[Harry D]

I agree with all this Fisherman, Cross was not the Ripper.

What compelled you to bump a thread from over a decade?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree with all this Fisherman, Cross was not the Ripper.

Fisherman argues well here, that Charles Cross is not the Ripper.
However, he overlooks a critical issue.

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

Lewis Deimschitz called, and examined.-I live at 40, Berner-street, and am steward of the International Working Men's Club. I am married, and my wife lives there too. She assists in the management of the club. I left home about half-past eleven on Saturday morning, and returned home exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at Harris's tobacco shop at the corner of Commercial-road and Berner-street. It was one o'clock. I had a barrow, something like a costermonger's, with me. I was sitting in it, and a pony was drawing it. It is a two-wheeled barrow. The pony is kept at George-yard, Cable-street. I do not keep it in the yard of the club. I was driving home to leave my goods. I drove into the yard. Both gates were wide open. It was rather dark there. I drove in as usual, and, all at once, as I came into the gate, my pony shied to the left. That caused me to turn my head down to the ground on my right to see what it was that had made him shy.

The critical issue being: The first man to use the word 'exactly', in reference to time, wins the argument.

Apparently, a key witness using the word 'exactly' when stating a time, has such a powerful effect that it effectively overrides the related times, stated by experienced police constables, as well as responsible members of the public.

The effect of this word is even more powerful when combined with a claim to have very recently observed a clock, prior to the incident in question, as is the case with Diemschitz.

If Paul had said 'It was about a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work...', and Diemschitz had said '[I] returned home around one o'clock on Sunday morning', Ripperology might have evolved very differently.

In each of these cases, we should be aware of how the pseudo-precision of these statements has had the effect of manipulating perceptions, and creating false realities.

Was this done purposely, in each case? I think most likely, yes.

I regard Robert Paul as a suspicious character.

[John Wheat]

Hi Barnaby!

To begin with, Charles Cross was actually not found standing over the body of Nichols - he was standing in the middle of the street as Robert Paul passed by, alerting the latter to come with him to take a closer look at the body. I know that Connor challenges this, but I think he does so with poor evidence - more on that later!

However, the answer to your question whether it would have been possible to commit the kind of mutilations inflicted on the victims, and afterwards go to job unnoticed, will be an answer that differs with the differing victims.
In Chapmans case, no, it would probably not be possible, since he would have had a considerable amount of blood on his hands. But in the Nichols case, I believe that he may not have had a single drop of blood on him as he left.

So, is Cross a viable suspect? Well, he is a man that we can put on the murder spot, and that means that we cannot rule him out. My own feeling, though, is that if he had been the Ripper, then the obvious position he would have been in as he first heard Pauls´ footsteps, would have been kneeling at Nichols´ body. And if so, he would have been faced with the task of tucking away a much bloodied knife (no weapon was found at the site, and the only obvious reason for this would have been that the killer brought his knife with him, away from the murder spot).
After having concealed the knife, he would then have risen from the body, and stepped a few paces out into the street, where Robert Paul came upon him. If this was what he did, I think we must accept that he did so because he did not want to arouse the suspicion that he himself was the killer.

If we accept all of this, it rises a question or two:

Cross heard Paul before he saw him in the darkness of Buck´s Row. That means he did not know to whom the sound of the steps belonged. And one good guess at that time in the morning would have been a policeman. And if a policeman found a man standing close to the body of a murdered woman, he would undoubtedly have searched that man, producing the knife – and that would have been it.

Now, let´s for theory´s sake assume that Cross for some reason actually knew that the steps did not belong to a policeman. Let´s make the assumption I threw forward earlier: that Cross realized that trying to make a run for it would have given him away.
Then why would he leave the murder spot in company with Paul, looking for a policeman? The obvious thing, since Paul knew not from what end Cross had entered Bucks Row, would have been to say ”You go that way, and I´ll go this way, and that will double our chances of finding a policeman swiftly. Of course, it would also provide the knife-carrying Cross with an excellent opportunity to escape.

All of this points – at least to my mind – very clearly to Cross NOT being the Ripper.

Since Connors tries to place Cross close to the body of Nichols in his dissertation, I think that the report from the inquest provides useful reading. These are the relevant parts:

"Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp."

”Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway. He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman. Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away.”

Meaning what? Meaning that Cross WAS in the middle of the road as Paul approached. He (Cross) then took a few steps to the pavement, on which Paul obviously was walking. In all probability Cross had set or was setting foot on the pavement as Paul came up to him, since the latter chose to step out into the street to pass Cross, who in his turn reached out and touched Pauls shoulder, stopping him.

Another part of the testimony that is telling is that Paul says that he, alerted to the situation by Cross, felt her (Nichols´) hands and face, and they were cold. And if ew accept that the Ripper moved on from neck-cutting to mutilation as swiftly as possible – and the evidence existing points very much to this – then how could Nichols body have grown cold it the very short time transpired?

The best,
Fisherman

I agree with all this Fisherman, Cross was not the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

....and off we go! To the Hutch thread "Proof of identity".

See you there, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Last Hutchinson-related post before returning to Cross.

If so, Ben, then that is a British interpretation, and I have no trouble buying it. In Sweden though, a military appearance means exactly tall and rangy (and for the record, I never mentioned "rangy", but there you are...)

I'm not sure how "military appearance" can ever mean tall and lean because such a person is unlikely to be very resilient in a trench-like atmosphere. It's one of the reasons "Georgie" from Blackadder Goes Fourth seems so amusingly incongruous with his environment. I often use Titanic victim Major Archie Butt as a good example of a man with military appearance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Archibald_Willingham_Butt.jpg

Quite full faced, and apparently quite fleshy, but straight backed, neatly trimmed moustace and generally oozing a "military appearance".

Lewis described her man not as "short", but as "not tall", in which case a height of 5"6' or 5"7' would seem a reasonable estimate. He allegedly stooped down to peer under the shadow of the man's hat which was "over his eyes", which would indicate a height similar to that of Mr. Astrakhan. Of course, if he lied about the encounter (hey, there's a thought!), it seems likely that the dimensions and heights in relation to Astrakhan were confused or invented anyway.

I will leave the issue of criminals injecting themselves into police investigations aside, since I have a view that differs radically from yours

Which I find most odd, but okay...

No, something else came along, and that something may well have arrived in the shape of either somebody coming forward to claim the role of Sarah Lewis´ loiterer, or somebody who made it clear to the police that Hutch had been elsewhere during the murder night

Actually, Fish, they didn't need anything conclusive and decisive. Maxwell was dismissed just as Hutchinson was, but not because of anything concrete that proved her wrong or lying. It was merely a police consensus of opinion based on the totality of evidence. If nothing concrete was required to dismiss Maxwell, why should we expect anything concrete to dismiss Hutchinson?

However, if there was anything tangible, if was probably the newspaper versions of his testimony that ran so contrary to his initial statement. This may have been the catalyst for the ultimate police decision that all was not well with his story, particularly the claim to have found a policeman on Sunday who ignored his evidence. That sort of thing can be proven false very quickly, and it is likely than it was, with Hutchinson being discarded as a consequence. The fact that the earlist indications of Hutchinson's discrediting came after those press disclosures lend support for the hypothesis.

Since any solitary Victoria Homie isn't likely to have had such a rich and varied social life that friends and neighbours could recollect his exact movements and actions for a fleeting moment in the small hours a specific November evening, the notion that Hutchinson had an alibi is rendered unlikely. Similarly, the very idea that he wasn't there at all is offset by Lewis' evidence of someone "watching and waiting" at the same spot and at the same time that Hutchinson claimed to be "watching and waiting".

Now go skiing and stay safe!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

On the military stature issue, I reread Derek Osbornes dissertation on these boards, and it seems that not only Swedes like myself favour a description of such a thing as something that will not tally with Lewis´man:
"Some commentators on this mystery, have assumed that the man seen by Sarah Lewis must have been George Hutchinson. That assumption must not be taken for granted. For a report in my own local paper, revealed that Hutchinson was 'a man of military appearance'. This description we find does not equate with that given by Sarah Lewis."

All the best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dan Norder writes:
"If you'd like to argue for or against Hutchinson, a thread about him as a suspect would be a better choice than here."
Absolutely, Dan. I merely responded to a question asked by Barnaby, involving a comparison between the different viabilities of Cross AND Hutch being the Ripper. But you are of course right; before Hutch takes over the thread totally, let´s move it.

I will only respond to Bens post first, since it sort of belongs to the comparison mentioned.

"A man with a military appearance is likely to be square-built, broad-shouldered and muscular, not tall and rangy."

If so, Ben, then that is a British interpretation, and I have no trouble buying it. In Sweden though, a military appearance means exactly tall and rangy (and for the record, I never mentioned "rangy", but there you are...)

Leaving British military stature aside, this would perhaps appply:
Astrakhan man was somewhere in the vicinity of 5 ft 6, according to Hutch. That makes him close to 170 centimeters, right? And 170 centimeters was not short in them days, meaning that a man of such height would not have been described by Sarah Lewis as a "short" man. By reasoning, Astrakhan man would have been a taller man than the man she saw loitering outside the court.
And Hutch? We don´t know his length. But we do know that as he spoke of his encounter with Astrakhan man, he said "I stooped down and looked him in the face". That seems to imply that he in his turn was a taller man than Astrakhan. In any event, he would NOT have been a short man, for short men do not stoop down to look in the faces of average or over average lenght men, do they?

I will leave the issue of criminals injecting themselves into police investigations aside, since I have a view that differs radically from yours, and since I fully realize that neither man will be swayed by the other.

Instead I will let one of your balls bounce back to you by first quoting "Whether Hutchinson was the killer or not, I think he's a likely a suspect as you'll encounter 119 years after the event" and then adding the next quote:
"I'm afraid I don't believe you and have absolutely no reason to."

I think that there is every possibility that Hutch and Lewis´ loiterer were NOT one and the same. We also know that Abberline believed Hutch from the outset. That means that he was willing to swallow the red handkerchief, the horse-shoe pin and all. He apparently saw nothing strange in it.
But as Hutch was clearly dismissed later on, something must have come up that caused the police to loose interest, and it must have been pretty conclusive. It will NOT have been a matter of Abberline giving his testimony a second thought and arriving at "Hm, well, perhaps not...?" His mind was already made up - the description was approved and therefore it must have been regarded as very useful.
No, something else came along, and that something may well have arrived in the shape of either somebody coming forward to claim the role of Sarah Lewis´ loiterer, or somebody who made it clear to the police that Hutch had been elsewhere during the murder night. Such a thing, I feel, would have resulted in exactly what happened, when the police went from eating from Hutch´s hand to dismissing his story.
Not enough has been said, I think, about the possibility that Hutch´s story was bogus from beginning to end. Although I have always believed that he was there, I think we must ask ourselves what clinches such a supposition. Where is the evidence?
But, Dan, like you said, it´s for another thread, and since my train is leaving this afternoon I will not participate more than over the next few hours, after which it is skiing time - and thank you for cheering me on, Ben; it is a first time for me, so if I do not return to the boards, you will know what happened...

The best,
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

I just can't imagine Cross (or anyone) committing such crimes and then continuing on to work. Weekends, yes. Coming home from work, sure. But does anyone know of other serial murderers who killed en route to their place of employment?

[Ben]

Not very tall would seem to indicate a shortish man, and a stout one, and “military appearance” more often than not is used about long men.

No it isn't, Fish - blimey!

A man with a military appearance is likely to be square-built, broad-shouldered and muscular, not tall and rangy.

Raving mad, with inner voices telling him that his own blood was turning to sand, meaning that he needed the blood of others… He lasted for a fortnight or so before he was caught. And he was hunted with modern methods, Ben

Yes, but in spite of his "raving madness", he too went to some effort to evade capture. An assumption that Cross would not have continued killing after that early police exposure is an experience-enriched commonsense deduction rather than a random "guess".

But as I have pointed out, we can´t even be sure that the man Lewis spoke of WAS Hutch in the first place. And the fact that such an injection as the one we are speaking of IS a very rare thing remains of great weight, I think.

No, is isn't, Fish.

It isn't "very rare" at all. If it was "very rare" we wouldn't have as many examples as we do. If it was "very rare", we wouldn't have experienced professionals in the fields anticipating it prior to the capture of the killer and laying snares accordingly with successful results. We can't "prove" that Lewis' man was Hutchinson's, but unless we're willing to embrace the "random coincidence of proximity and timing" hypothesis, there are plentiful and compelling reasons for thinking he was.

But if you have found the Ripper when I return, it won´t be Cross OR Hutch, believe me…

I'm afraid I don't believe you and have absolutely no reason to. Whether Hutchinson was the killer or not, I think he's a likely a suspect as you'll encounter 119 years after the event.

Enjoy skiing!

Best wishes,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

Fisherman,

If you'd like to argue for or against Hutchinson, a thread about him as a suspect would be a better choice than here.

[Fisherman]

Right guys!

Let´s start with Dan Norder. He states “Hutchinson only came forward after another witness testified to seeing a mysterious man hanging around the scene of the crime” and “Hutchinson's account featured a lot of details that could have easily come from previous newspaper reports, while Cross of course did not.”

Exactly, Dan! And that is why I am saying that whereas we with certainty can place Cross at Nichols body, we have to rely on Hutch´s own words that he was in Dorset Street that night. And you must admit that there is some reason to see at least some of his testimony as ramblings.

Moreover, Hutch was somewhere (exactly where has escaped my mind) described as a man of a military appearance. But at the inquest (which Hutch may well have read all about in the papers, Lewis stated: “I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall.”

Not very tall would seem to indicate a shortish man, and a stout one, and “military appearance” more often than not is used about long men. No certainty, no big point – but an indicator telling us that perhaps the man in the wideawake was NOT Hutch. And as we delve deeper into possibilities like this, we are finally left with only one point written in stone: We know that Cross was there! That must govern our thinking more than the words of a man who had obvious difficulties dealing with the truth. Just my five cents, though.

Ben! You write “as I'm sure you're aware, the actions and movements of a serial killer are dictated by a desire to evade capture in spite of whatever compulsion they have to kill”, after which you travel in a slightly other direction by adding “If the "compulsion" factor overrided everthing else, the killer certainly wouldn't evade capture for long”.
Of course a killer could be taken over by “inner voices” and such, and rendered unable to choose safety before striking. It has been shown at numerous occasions, which you will be aware of. And yes, the possibility that he would have been caught would grow in such a case – but it would not grow into any certainty. Have a look at Richard Trenton Chase and you will see what I am talking about. Raving mad, with inner voices telling him that his own blood was turning to sand, meaning that he needed the blood of others… He lasted for a fortnight or so before he was caught. And he was hunted with modern methods, Ben!

So no, believing that Cross would never have gone on to kill and stay uncaught is just a guess - and guesses of course may be wrong.

As for “Anyone who inserts themselves into a police investigation should be compared not with every serial killer out there, but with any serial killer who found himself in a predicament where such pre-emptive action was occasioned, like being seen loitering outside a victim's flat.”, you of course have some sort of point – every case is unique. But as I have pointed out, we can´t even be sure that the man Lewis spoke of WAS Hutch in the first place. And the fact that such an injection as the one we are speaking of IS a very rare thing remains of great weight, I think.

Finally, Ben, your wording: “I don't mind you favouring Cross” only applies if you mean that I favour him over Hutch – that I do. But Cross was NOT the Ripper, the way I see things. The Ripper had been gone a number of minutes as Cross came upon the cooling body of Nichols.

I´m off for skiing tomorrow, so I won´t be able to fight it out any further these next few days. But if you have found the Ripper when I return, it won´t be Cross OR Hutch, believe me…

The best,
Fisherman