A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[Fisherman]

Hello all,

the blood thing is one of the reasons why I'm having great difficulties with Cross the Ripper. It seems absolutely impossible to me to kill and mutilate a woman like Polly and come out of it without at least some telltale drops of blood on your clothes or hands. You also can't just wipe that stuff away from your skin, it will always leave a few red "shadows" behind that can only be removed by thorough washing with soap.

Best wishes,

Boris

I think - as did representants for the police and medicos back then - that the killer need not have had any significant blood on him after Nichols - or any blood at all.
At any rate, it was pitch dark and most clothes were dark or black, so it would not be easy to see any droplets of blood even if they were there.

And of course, Lechmere would have had an alibi for any blood on his person after having examined Nichols at the crime scene.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Turning a mere witness into an unlikely suspect is nothing new.
That's just the entertaining side of ripperology.
I was struck yesterday by one of Fish's post, where we could read something like : "Ed has spent 15 years hunting down Crossmere.."
Reminds me of Cornwell : "I've spent 6 millions dollars".
Or worst, Sophie Herfort : "I'm after Macnaghten since my 6th birthday".

Cheers all

[bolo]

Hello all,

the blood thing is one of the reasons why I'm having great difficulties with Cross the Ripper. It seems absolutely impossible to me to kill and mutilate a woman like Polly and come out of it without at least some telltale drops of blood on your clothes or hands. You also can't just wipe that stuff away from your skin, it will always leave a few red "shadows" behind that can only be removed by thorough washing with soap.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Fisherman]

I admit that Cross has a certain appeal but his candidacy leaves a lot to be desired. It seems to be based on the fact he was found with the victim's body and gave a phony name to the authorities.

Yes.

And the fact that he had a working trek that seemingly took him past all the murder sites at the correct hours.

And the fact that Nichols had her wounds covered.

And the fact that he seems to have hidden his address when at the inquest.

And the fact that a PC claims that Lechmere only spoke of a trivial errand.

And the fact that Mizen tells us that Lechmere claimed that another PC awaited him in Buckīs Row.

And the fact that he arrived to the inquest in working clothes.

And the fact that neither man seems to have heard the other man walking in Buckīs Row, in spite of the modest distance inbetween them.

And the fact that Lechmere did not raise any alarm before he was joined by Paul.

And the fact that Nichols was still bleeding when Mizen came back after having fetched an ambulance.

And the fact that Lechmere chose to walk a longer way than required to work in spite of having claimed that he was late that morning.

... otherwise, I think you got all the points correct.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish ,

I'm convinced. The Pinchin Street connection and the revelation of his mother's cats meat activity are the clinchers for me. (Partly because my grandmother lived in Pinchin Street, I must admit).

MrB

There you go!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

But why NOT touch her? Wouldn't that have been a way of explaining any blood that may have splattered on his clothes?

Yes - and he DID touch her. But he refused to do so when Paul suggested that they should prop her up. If hw knew that she had had her head nearly cut off, that could be the explanation.

After all, it was dark and blood on his clothing would likely not be readily apparent (to himself or to Paul).

True.

If he were 'interrupted' by Paul he had not the time to inspect himself.

Also true. It would have been impossible in the darkness anyway.

Fact is, if he was the killer, he would have had no way of knowing if he had blood on his person or not.

Unless he could feel it, yes that is also true.

I would think that - as the brillinant psychopath he no doubt was - having inserted himself as a witness into his own murder and having no way of knowing if he'd be put in a bright room by the police who'd certainly subject him to some level of examination, he'd jump at the chance to explain away any tell-tale blood droplets that may have lept upon him whilst he slit Nichol's throat and carved her up.

Exactly - which is why he did touch Nichols repeatedly, her hand and her face.

I think you missed out on that point in my former post. The anomaly is: Why would he say "No, I wonīt touch her" after having touched her hands and face? Because it would give away what had happened to her when they propped her up, thatīs why.

So, Patrick, as the brillliant psychopath he was, he first procured the alibi, then avoided getting it revealed what had happened to her.

It`s a nuisance how these things backfire at times, eh?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish ,

I'm convinced. The Pinchin Street connection and the revelation of his mother's cats meat activity are the clinchers for me. (Partly because my grandmother lived in Pinchin Street, I must admit).

MrB

[Harry D]

I admit that Cross has a certain appeal but his candidacy leaves a lot to be desired. It seems to be based on the fact he was found with the victim's body and gave a phony name to the authorities. Both of which could have any number of innocent explanations.

We have no evidence that Cross had the required knowledge to perform the mutilations, that he had any history of aggressive/deviant behaviour, nor any reasonable explanation for why he suddenly gave up the serial killer scene.

It's a case built on sand I'm afraid, but does appear to be picking up steam for some reason.

[Patrick S]

These matters have been up for discussion before, all of them, Dane. They represent different levels of difficulty to answer.

1. What caused him to stop killing?
Only one person has ever had access to the answer to that one - the killer himself. We cannot possibly know.
I find it a lot more interesting to look at other cases where this has happened, like the Rader case; they tell us that it CAN happen, although most of the discussion has always moved along the rather simplistic lines of "they never stop once they have gotten the taste of it".
There is a distinct possibility that the question in itself is wrong - how do we know that he DID stop killing? There are loads of unsolved murders to choose from in the aftermath of the Ripper murders. Personally, I think that if one favours Lechmere as the killer, it becomes impossible to avoid the Pinchin Street torso murder in September 1889. The torso of a woman with no legs or head attached was found in the archway of the railway passing over Pinchin Street.
Lechmere had lived in Pinchin Street as a kid (It was called Thomas Street at that time). He would have been intimately aquainted with the area.
His motherīs house was a stones throw away, and we know from the 1891 census that she was a cats meat woman, using meat saws and knifes to cut up horses to fleshcubes put on skewers and sold as cats meat.
The torso had been subjected to a meat saw and knife, apparently.
Lechmeres mothers third husband, Joseph Forsdike was taken ill that fall, and subsequently died from senility and bronchitis, so there is a chance that he was hospitalized with his wife by his side, leaving the flat - where the cats meat business could have been run - empty.
Finally, it has been suggested that a personal trauma could play a role. And Lechmeres young daughter Harriet Emma died after the Ripper killings.
But on the whole, what reasons there were - if he DID stop killing - we canīt know.

2. Why did he not stop after nearly getting caught after the first attempt?
I donīt think it WAS the first attempt. I think that at least Tabram was an earlier victim, and I donīt exclude that the early Torso victims from the 1870:s belonged to him
And I am anything but sure that he himself thought he was nearly caught. He may well have felt it was easy enough to trick the dumb coppers, the way confident serialists often do.

3. Why did nobody see any blood on him after Nichols?
Well, the blood from the neck could have been deposited to Nichols side by tilting her head. And as for the abdominal wounds, it was the knife that entered her, and not his hands. No organs were reported missing. There is also the possibility that he lifted her clothing, straddling her with his face looking down towards her feet, and used the clothes as a makeshift shield as he cut into her belly.
At any rate, it may well be that he suspected that he DID run the risk of having gotten blood on him, which would be why he invited Paul to examin her with him and feel her hands and face. That would give him a useful alibi - that Paul would corroborate - for any blood on him.
Please notice though, that when Paul asked Lechmere to help him prop her up, Lechere answered that he would not touch her - which he had of course already done! But propping her up would give away what had happened to her, since she had almost been decapitated.

All the best,
Fisherman

But why NOT touch her? Wouldn't that have been a way of explaining any blood that may have splattered on his clothes? After all, it was dark and blood on his clothing would likely not be readily apparent (to himself or to Paul). If he were 'interrupted' by Paul he had not the time to inspect himself. Fact is, if he was the killer, he would have had no way of knowing if he had blood on his person or not. I would think that - as the brillinant psychopath he no doubt was - having inserted himself as a witness into his own murder and having no way of knowing if he'd be put in a bright room by the police who'd certainly subject him to some level of examination, he'd jump at the chance to explain away any tell-tale blood droplets that may have lept upon him whilst he slit Nichol's throat and carved her up.

[Fisherman]

I'm intrigued. Fisherman is certainly convinced. Here's a few questions if we accept your explanations.

1) what caused him to stop killing?
2) why did he not stop after nearly being caught the very first attempt?
3) why did no one notice any blood on him if he had just ripped and mutilated a woman?

These matters have been up for discussion before, all of them, Dane. They represent different levels of difficulty to answer.

1. What caused him to stop killing?
Only one person has ever had access to the answer to that one - the killer himself. We cannot possibly know.
I find it a lot more interesting to look at other cases where this has happened, like the Rader case; they tell us that it CAN happen, although most of the discussion has always moved along the rather simplistic lines of "they never stop once they have gotten the taste of it".
There is a distinct possibility that the question in itself is wrong - how do we know that he DID stop killing? There are loads of unsolved murders to choose from in the aftermath of the Ripper murders. Personally, I think that if one favours Lechmere as the killer, it becomes impossible to avoid the Pinchin Street torso murder in September 1889. The torso of a woman with no legs or head attached was found in the archway of the railway passing over Pinchin Street.
Lechmere had lived in Pinchin Street as a kid (It was called Thomas Street at that time). He would have been intimately aquainted with the area.
His motherīs house was a stones throw away, and we know from the 1891 census that she was a cats meat woman, using meat saws and knifes to cut up horses to fleshcubes put on skewers and sold as cats meat.
The torso had been subjected to a meat saw and knife, apparently.
Lechmeres mothers third husband, Joseph Forsdike was taken ill that fall, and subsequently died from senility and bronchitis, so there is a chance that he was hospitalized with his wife by his side, leaving the flat - where the cats meat business could have been run - empty.
Finally, it has been suggested that a personal trauma could play a role. And Lechmeres young daughter Harriet Emma died after the Ripper killings.
But on the whole, what reasons there were - if he DID stop killing - we canīt know.

2. Why did he not stop after nearly getting caught after the first attempt?
I donīt think it WAS the first attempt. I think that at least Tabram was an earlier victim, and I donīt exclude that the early Torso victims from the 1870:s belonged to him
And I am anything but sure that he himself thought he was nearly caught. He may well have felt it was easy enough to trick the dumb coppers, the way confident serialists often do.

3. Why did nobody see any blood on him after Nichols?
Well, the blood from the neck could have been deposited to Nichols side by tilting her head. And as for the abdominal wounds, it was the knife that entered her, and not his hands. No organs were reported missing. There is also the possibility that he lifted her clothing, straddling her with his face looking down towards her feet, and using the clothes as a makeshift shield as he cut into her belly.
At any rate, it may well be that he suspected that he DID run the risk of having gotten blood on him, which would be why he invited Paul to examin her with him and feel her hands and face. That would give him a useful alibi - that Paul would corroborate - for any blood on him.
Please notice though, that when Paul asked Lechmere to help him prop her up, Lechere answered that he would not touch her - which he had of course already done! But propping her up would give away what had happened to her, since she had almost been decapitated.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Dane_F]

I'm intrigued. Fisherman is certainly convinced. Here's a few questions if we accept your explanations.

1) what caused him to stop killing?
2) why did he not stop after nearly being caught the very first attempt?
3) why did no one notice any blood on him if he had just ripped and mutilated a woman?

[Fisherman]

I wonder how Ottis Toole would have done on the Dating Game?

Didnīt he shack up with Lucas that way...?

Fisherman

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:

Alcala claimed to have been a genius. Not sure he was ever given an IQ test (?).

He scored 160, Patrick.

Ottis Toole was, if I'm not mistaken, mentally retarded, with an IQ of around 70 (?). Was he ever diagnosed as a psychopath?

I think so, yes. Together with a host of other diagnoses. He scored 75 IQ-wise.

The best,
Fisherman

I wonder how Ottis Toole would have done on the Dating Game?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

Alcala claimed to have been a genius. Not sure he was ever given an IQ test (?).

He scored 160, Patrick.

Ottis Toole was, if I'm not mistaken, mentally retarded, with an IQ of around 70 (?). Was he ever diagnosed as a psychopath?

I think so, yes. Together with a host of other diagnoses. He scored 75 IQ-wise.

The best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

FrankO: Is there a point in there, Fish?

Not really. There is some little recognition of the fact that I think that a number of the points made against Lechmere have a measure of desperation in them. Not that your point explicitly would be worse than many other ones. I just did not think it a very good one, if I may be so bold. Sorry.

Also if that’s the only thing that could link them to a murder and they had almost been caught?

That would depend on the perpetrator and the circumstances. A self-secure psychopath would be less inclined to be overly cautious. But itīs an academic discussion, methinks.

Simple & efficient, isn’t it?

Simple, yes. But efficient? Once the knife was found, it would be pretty obvious who had left it there, would it not? The phantom killer that is suggested as preceding Lechmere, for example - if he was there two minutes earlier, undisturbed, why would he yank his knife in under Nichols?
Iīd say that if Lechmere had done so, heīd be hard pushed to bring it back out unnoticed or to kill Paul with it. It suddenly becomes a whole different ballgame in such a case, and I am not certain at all that it woud be a wise move. Are you?

Why should there be one, Christer?

There neednīt be, as I said. But I would be much interested to hear if there WAS.

Ah, an acknowledgement of sorts after all.

Of what, precisely...? It is something that goes without saying, more or less. Psychopaths will not be nervous and so they will have more time to think over what the wisest step is. But there is no guarantee that they will secure that the best step is taken, since that is to some extent a question of intelligence. And you can be a dumb psychopath just as well as you can be a clever one. There have been psychopath serialists that have scored extremely high IQ:s like Rodney Alcala, for example. But there have also been those who have scored embarrasingly low on that scale, like for example Ottis Toole.

All the best,
Fisherman

Alcala claimed to have been a genius. Not sure he was ever given an IQ test (?).

Ottis Toole was, if I'm not mistaken, mentally retarded, with an IQ of around 70 (?). Was he ever diagnosed as a psychopath?