Cross The Ripper?

[Fisherman]

At least we can agree on one thing.

Thatīs a jolly good start. Who knows where it will take us...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Natasha]

I think Schwartz saw what he said he did.

The best,
Fisherman

At least we can agree on one thing.

[Fisherman]

Natasha:

Most serial killers are highly social-able and have no trouble communicating with people, after all psychopaths are the most talented in this field for feigning charisma and charm and gaining the trust of others.

Many serial killers function like this, yes. But there are many exceptions too.
Why do you bring it up in relation to our carman?

I don't believe Cross did it.

What makes you think he did?

He gave the wrong name to the police, his version on what had been said and done differed a lot from what Mizen said, implying that he lied, the body was covered up which it did not have to be with a killer that had fled the scene, he had reason to be at each and every murder site at the correct times, nobody else was seen entering or leaving Buckīs Row at the relevant time etcetera, etcetera.

What do you think about Israel Schwartz witness statement? If Cross did do it what are the comparisons between the descriptions of the suspects?

I think Schwartz saw what he said he did. And I donīt exclude that he describes Lechmere - but he speaks of a younger man. Mistaken age is however common. Otherwise, a stury man with respectable clothing and a peaked cap - yeah, it could be him, alright. Does not have to be, though - there was plenty of time for another man to enter the scene.

Also if he is responsible, and you believe he killed all 5, who do you think his accomplice was, if you believe Schwartz ?

I donīt think he had any accomplice. Schwartz probably got that wrong. Pipeman could just as well have fled behind him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Natasha]

Most serial killers are highly social-able and have no trouble communicating with people, after all psychopaths are the most talented in this field for feigning charisma and charm and gaining the trust of others.

I don't believe Cross did it.

What makes you think he did?

What do you think about Israel Schwartz witness statement? If Cross did do it what are the comparisons between the descriptions of the suspects?

Also if he is responsible, and you believe he killed all 5, who do you think his accomplice was, if you believe Schwartz ?

[Fisherman]

Welcome to the world of suspectology - leave your logic at the door...

Thanks, but Iīll pass.

Fisherman

[Sally]

Ooh, look!

Two more people have voted for Cross the Ripper!!!

It's working, guys, it's working - bring on the suspect book!

[Sally]

Fish,

Was it you, or the charming Ed who said that Crossmere was suspicious because he wasn't suspicious?

Welcome to the world of suspectology - leave your logic at the door...

[Fisherman]

Natasha:

To be honest at first I was suspicious of him, as he was the only identified person, I think, to be seen near one of the victims bodies. And I know most suspects who were guilty of the crimes they committed have been questioned and been let off, but I don't think he was responsible for these crimes.

Why would he do it, what were his motives?

Why would the Ripper do it? Why would any serial killer do it?

It is an absurd thing to do, and it would be better if it never happened. Sadly, though, it does. And the motive in nearly all serial killer cases is a wish to kill - the act itself is the motive, Natasha.

What is his medical history?

We do not know.

What were his relationships with people like?

He was married, he had eleven kids, he held down a steady job.

John Eric Armstrong was married with two kids, he held down a steady job. The Green River killer was married and held down a steady job. Gacy was married and held down a steady job. Rader was married with kids, and held down a steady job.

Donīt ever think that a social alibi will disenable you to be a serial killer!

I know JTR would have been covered in blood, but the point is he would do his best to avoid being seen in this condition.

I donīt think that he would have been covered in blood at all. But I think he chose the hour of night because a/it offered a window in time for him to kill, and b/it offered a good chance that there were nearly no people on the streets.

Think about this: in Hanbury Street, he cut Chapmans belly open, dug out her intestines, threw them over her shoulder, excised her uterus, cut flaps of her belly, etcetera. It is easy to envisage him with blood up to his shoulders.

Yet there was apparently not a speck of blood on the door that led out into the backyard. And that door closed itself, so he HAD to open it on his way out, unless he instead chose to scale the rotten fences dividing the backyards and use another doorway out.

Why did he not set off any blood on the door?

The best,
Fisherman

[Natasha]

To be honest at first I was suspicious of him, as he was the only identified person, I think, to be seen near one of the victims bodies. And I know most suspects who were guilty of the crimes they committed have been questioned and been let off, but I don't think he was responsible for these crimes.

Why would he do it, what were his motives?

What is his medical history?

What were his relationships with people like?

I know JTR would have been covered in blood, but the point is he would do his best to avoid being seen in this condition

[Natasha]

To be honest at first I was suspicious of him, as he was the only identified person, I think, to be seen near one of the victims bodies. And I know most suspects who were guilty of the crimes they committed have been questioned and been let off, but I don't think he was responsible for these crimes.

Why would he do it, what were his motives?

What is his medical history?

What were his relationships with people like?

[Fisherman]

Natasha: 'Donīt you think that he could afterwards have said: Oh, I must have gotten that smear when I and that other fellow examined the body"?'

Paul was the one who was covering her up etc, Cross just touched her hand, Paul was more likely to have blood on him.


From the inquest:
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. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm.

So he felt both her hands AND her face. And it was dark, and Paul was preoccupied with what he was doing. Iīd say he would have a pretty good alibi afterwards!

Why would Cross be reluctant to pick her up? Psychopaths are cool, calm and collected, they don't flinch or in this possible scenario, if Cross did kill her, 'come to his senses' . He would be more inclined to play the role of the innocent man, and go ahead with Paul's suggestion.

Not, I think, if that would involve it becoming apparent that it was a case of murder. When this was revealed, the men could not cheerfully leave her. They would be forced to call attention to the matter, and the arriving police would ask questions - and likely search them.

If he did do it, why didn't he run?

NOW itīs time to think: psychopath!

The police may have decided to question him down the station, then what would he have done.

He avoided that by lying about the other PC in Buckīs Row,

'You say that he would have blood on him. To what extent and where? And how do you know this? Contemporary medicos said that there was no need to expect that the killer would have had blood on him.'

The killer would have a spattering of blood, he wouldn't take for granted this fact, he wouldn't think 'well I'm gonna kill someone but hey there is no way I will get any blood on me'. I appreciate it was dark, but if he got pulled in for questioning by the police they may have found bloodstains on his clothes and hands, not to mention the weapon.

The blood on his hands and clothes would have had an alibi. He avoided getting searched by lying to Mizen. Thatīs how I see it; a practical solution, thought out as he moved along.

This killer was methodical and most especially since he hasn't, as far as we know, been caught. He most probably thought about these crimes before perpetrating them, therefore he wouldn't take anything for granted not even a single drop of blood.

No matter who killed the women, he HAD TO walk the streets afterwards, blood or no blood.

Also it is speculation what the medics think, the streets were pitch black back then, how can you murder someone in the dark and expect not to get bloodstained?

You cannot know that you will succeed. But you can minimize the risks! And if you feel compelled to kill out in the open street, you are a risktaker no matter how we cut it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Natasha]

'Donīt you think that he could afterwards have said: Oh, I must have gotten that smear when I and that other fellow examined the body"?'

Paul was the one who was covering her up etc, Cross just touched her hand, Paul was more likely to have blood on him. Why would Cross be reluctant to pick her up? Psychopaths are cool, calm and collected, they don't flinch or in this possible scenario, if Cross did kill her, 'come to his senses' . He would be more inclined to play the role of the innocent man, and go ahead with Paul's suggestion.
If he did do it, why didn't he run? The police may have decided to question him down the station, then what would he have done


'You say that he would have blood on him. To what extent and where? And how do you know this? Contemporary medicos said that there was no need to expect that the killer would have had blood on him.'

The killer would have a spattering of blood, he wouldn't take for granted this fact, he wouldn't think 'well I'm gonna kill someone but hey there is no way I will get any blood on me'. I appreciate it was dark, but if he got pulled in for questioning by the police they may have found bloodstains on his clothes and hands, not to mention the weapon

This killer was methodical and most especially since he hasn't, as far as we know, been caught. He most probably thought about these crimes before perpetrating them, therefore he wouldn't take anything for granted not even a single drop of blood

Also it is speculation what the medics think, the streets were pitch black back then, how can you murder someone in the dark and expect not to get bloodstained?

[Sally]

Ripper of an idea.

But no idea who I'd vote for, so many poor choices.

I've set up a poll in Pub Talk so we can all vote for our worst suspect[s] - just for fun

I didn't put Crossmere on the list btw - I wouldn't want Ed coming after me with a big stick...

[Fisherman]

I don't think Cross was the ripper.

He would have had blood on him, and knowing this he would of agreed to pick up the body, then this would be a good enough reason for having blood on him if he had to explain to anyone suspicious of him

Why do you not feel that it would have sufficed to touch and feel the body in the darkness - the hand, the face - to get an alibi?
Donīt you think that he could afterwards have said: Oh, I must have gotten that smear when I and that other fellow examined the body"?
You say that he would have blood on him. To what extent and where? And how do you know this? Contemporary medicos said that there was no need to expect that the killer would have had blood on him.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Sally

Most of them, Gut. The actual worst suspect is open to question, although there are a few contenders.

Maybe we should have a poll....

Ripper of an idea.

But no idea who I'd vote for, so many poor choices.