Charles Cross

[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

[Rubyretro]

It's not subtle enough to be funny.

The Good Mike ?

Sally ?

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

[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]

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

[Fisherman]

No, Ruby - it´s "Polly", remember!

the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

No, Ruby - it´s "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...

[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

[Julie Newly]

Thanks Fisherman Is there a book forthcoming?
Thanks Mr Lucky will read

Julie Newly

[Fisherman]

Julie Newry:

"Thanks Fisherman Is there a book forthcoming?"

My pleasure, Julie - and no, I am not writing a book.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr. Candlebridge]

I too was spurred to make an (re)appearance after reading said article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...nal-Green.html

[martin wilson]

It's interesting that Paul said at the inquest that Cross touched him on the shoulder, so did the man who was with Mary Kelly according to Hutchison,although that's where the resemblance ends,still it may be a gesture ingrained through habit and thus done without thinking.
What time did Cross leave for work? 3.20 or 3.30?
If 3.20,based on Pauls' time of 3.45 and Micheal Connors timing of 6 minutes from Doveton street to Bucks Row,means Cross had 19 minutes unaccounted for.
However Mizen and Neil both said 3.45 so Paul may have been wrong and it was closer to 3.40 when he was in Bucks Row.
Micheal Connor thinks even if Cross was telling the truth about leaving home at 3.30 he still had time to kill Nicholls.
It's bad form to solicit opinion, so mark me down as a cad and a bounder,can any policeman reading or contributing to these boards say that a different name and a convenient 10 minutes accounted for on that particular day doesn't start their coppers nose twitching?
All the best.

[Fisherman]

Martin Wilson:

"can any policeman reading or contributing to these boards say that a different name and a convenient 10 minutes accounted for on that particular day doesn't start their coppers nose twitching?"

...and if that nose catches a whiff of blood, then maybe some further interest could be added by the knowledge that the murders took place along the way he walked to his job, day in and day out? But for, that is, the Stride killing that just happened to occur along a route he may well have used to get to his mother´s house. Plus the Pinchin Street case just happened to land at the doorstep of his mother´s house too.

After that, any serious nose would have clogged up.

Then again, I am no policeman, so maybe I take an interest in details that are totally uninteresting and irrelevant.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Far be it for me to make sweeping judgements for members of a whole profession or service, but...
I don’t think that policemen – on average – are known for independent thought. They tend to be set in their ways and governed by the rule book.

[Monty]

Far be it for me to make sweeping judgements for members of a whole profession or service, but...
I don’t think that policemen – on average – are known for independent thought. They tend to be set in their ways and governed by the rule book.

Yet you do, and ignorant comments too.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Ooops