Charles Cross

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Julie

Charles Cross isn't a new suspect.

If you click on 'dissertations' to the left of screen, you can read two essays by Michael Conner from years ago -

'Charles Cross was Jack the Ripper' and 'Did the ripper work for Pickfords' both well worth reading.

Best wishes

[Rubyretro]

No, Ruby - itīs "Polly", remember!

the best,
Fisherman

OK...But you might well be Julie l I wouldn't put it passed Lechmere's mind...but somehow I don't think that he typed it...

[Fisherman]

No, Ruby - itīs "Polly", remember!

the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I'm guessing now that Fisherman is 'Julie'...

[Fisherman]

Hi Julie!

Since I am one of the two authors of the article you read, I will refrain from saying anything on that matter. But as for the missing parts bit, the story goes:
Nichols - nothing missing.
Chapman - the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder missing.
Stride - no eviscerations.
Eddowes - major part of the uterus missing together with the left kidney.
Kelly - all inner organs taken out, heart possibly missing (different takes on that one!)

...and welcome to the boards!

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

It's not subtle enough to be funny.

The Good Mike ?

Sally ?

edit : Sally. (Mike's nasty, but clever).

[Julie Newly]

Hello forum members I'm new to the casebook forums but not new to ripperology

I've recently read an article on line proposing Charles Cross as a new suspect and would like to hear your views on his likeliness as a candidate

My opinion concerning the perpatrator is that he was a lurker and an opportunist He may have been impotent and the knife a phallic substitute He may have watched the victims engaged with their Johns and attacked the woman after the man left her

Am I correct that only 3 body parts were missing: a uterus, kidney and MJK's heart?

Thanks for your input

Julie Newly