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

[bolo]

Hello Fisherman,

finally I have enough time to reply to your post, sorry for the delay.

Hello Fisherman,

my uncle was a farmer and my sister and I lived on his farm for months when we were little. On slaughtering day, we helped him with the pigs that got turned into Bratwurst every year and never came out without at least a bit of blood on our workwear. Cutting throats and ripping the belly open can't be done without getting your hands dirty so to speak, even if you take great care in keeping the first spray of blood away from you... ...and we worked in bright daylight, contrary to the murderer of Polly who did what he did at night without proper lighting and in a hurry.

Iīm sure many others have made the same experience, bolo, when participating at a slaughter. The risk will be there.

But letīs google away and look at a few pictures like these two:

http://karolinalinden.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/img_8308.jpg

http://www.svd.se/migration_catalog/Artikelbilder/1209378.svd/representations/d/veckansbilder8-bspec.jpg?1382107692000

These are slaughterers that have just cut the necks of animals. What I would ask you to do is to look at their hands! There is no blood on them that I can see. The second gentleman has specks of blood on his shirt, but that will not have come from cutting the neck of that oxen, they are apparently old specks. And the first gentleman carries out his work clad in shining white with very few specks on him.
But the main point I am making: The hands!

Then we add this:

http://arbetet.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ernstkouffer3811.jpg

Hereīs a man who WILL have blood on his hands! But look at the apron and the clothes otherwise. Can you see much blood on them? I canīt. And this guy, mind you, knows that he does not have to be careful about any blood, he could just change his apron if he got bloodied.

Of course, the pig would probably have been killed and perhaps bled before he got to handle it, but to some extent Nichols was bled too.

Thanks for the links to the pictures, quite interesting.

However, there are two major differences between them and Polly's case

First, Polly got killed and mutilated when it was dark and her murderer most probably worked in a hurry. Slaughtermen usually take their time when doing their work, except for those who work at large slaughterhouses and get paid by the piece, hence the more intense soiling on the slaughterman seen in the third picture. If the murderer got his hands dirty so to speak (and I bet that was the case), it's not unreasonable to assume that some blood got transferred to other parts of his body or clothing. As the knife was not found on or in the vicinity of the crime scene, he would have had to conceal it, i. e. hide it somewhere in his clothes which would have gotten him some blood on them.

Yes, he could have wiped his hands and knife on Polly's clothing. Then again, didn't the doctors in Kate's case mention that someone used the piece of apron found in Goulston Street for wiping his hands? If Polly's murderer would have done that on her clothing, it might have been noticed as well, don't you think.

Second, the slaughtermen shown in the pictures use knifes that are razor sharp while the weapon used against Polly was only moderately sharp and had been used with great force as seen on the gashing throat wound. A slaughterman does not slash the throat of an animal with great force but makes a swift cut over the throat while standing on the side of the animal. From what I know about slaughtering, applying a fierce forehand slash with the right hand or a backhand slash with the left (to create a wound that runs from left to right) with a half-blunt knife is a sure-fire chance of getting blood on you, not only your hands but also on your face and clothes, even if Polly had been strangled before. We also used to cattle-gun the pigs before cutting their throats but the blood spray was still quite noticeable and it wasn't unusual to get a bit of splatter on your person.

Letīs begin by acknowledging that there was no gush of blood on the pavement beneath Nichols. She may well have been dead as he cut her, having been strangled before that. It seems the blood poured out less violently than with a living person, where there will be a substantial jet of blood shooting out.
And if he handled her like the gentleman in the shining white on the pic linked to above, his hands would be equally clean.

See above.

Then there is the question of the abdominal wounds. In Nichols case, we have no missing organs, so we should not expect the killer to have plunged his hands into her abdominal cavity.
Therefore it applies that the force with which he cut away will have governed what splatter there was (or was not) to a very significant extent. Plus we have the possibility that he may have used her clothing as a makeshift shield. After that, there is even the possibility that he could have worn gloves.
So itīs a hard, hard call to make.

According to Llewellyn, there was a deep cut on Polly's leftmost lower part that ran in a jagged manner. This coincides with the doctor's opinion that the knife was only moderately sharp which caused the jagged wound. Jagged means that the knife did not go through the tissue like a hot knife through butter but had to be dragged through with considerable force ('violently and downwards'). If you'd try that with a pig after its throat has been cut, I bet you would get quite some blood on your ankles or lower arm (or clothing).

I agree that the murderer probably took some care not to get soiled too heavily but I refuse to accept the idea that he got out there completely clean and shiny. This makes the case against Cross questionable in my eyes.

It was pitch dark, he may have worn dark clothes, and a carman was not expected to be completely clean and shiny in the first place, bolo. The work he did would have "coloured" how he looked, if you see what I mean. Many carmen will have delivered meat, for instance. Of course, Lechmere would probably not have. But he would have the advantage of not being looked upon with suspicion because he was not shiningly clean and spotless when working.

PCs on the beat carried lanterns (mostly on the back of their belts) that emitted a comparably bright light due to their heavy lenses. It was common practice to use the lantern when a PC got approached by someone at night and I'm sure that Mizen would have noticed the blood on Crossmere's person in this case.

I don't rule out the possibilty that the killer was experienced enough not to get blood on him (or that he simply was a lucky bastard), thus Mizen wouldn't have noticed anything suspicious. Still, it's hard to stomach for me, given what I know about cutting open various parts of farm animals.

Then there's the issue of the knife but that's another discussion I guess.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Lechmere]

Oh dear Ben, you do get your knickers in a twist.

[Bridewell]

But I don't think it has really been proved that he went and married in Newcastle or wherever it was as there is some evidence to suggest two Albert Cadosches.

I don't want to further disrupt a Cross/Lechmere thread by pursuing this aspect here. We can continue, if you wish, on the Ripperologist thread where the matter was originally discussed:-

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7526&page=5

[Ben]

Again it is illustrative of the reason why Hutchinson theorists don't get traction for their theory

Again, Lechmere, Hutchinson theorists get considerably more "traction" for their theory than Cross theorists do for theirs.

It is not a "fact" that Hutchinson was "interrogated", only that Abberline said he was, and while it is reasonable to conclude that the latter's wording was accurate, it is equally possible that he used a big important word to convey thoroughness to his superiors, to whom he was writing. Either way, you have no evidence at all - and no good reason to conclude - that the Hutchinson's truthfulness (or otherwise) was scrutinized to any greater extent than other witnesses, including Cross. Your carman's true identity coming the fore is an undeniable inevitability, and therefore not an "arguable point".

Now to sort this "traction" nonsense out: Your list of "popular" suspects is restricted to those who were either known police suspects or responsible for a mini-sensation in the pre-internet age, such as Maybrick and the royal conspiracy theory. These suspects are better known purely for that reason, and are not necessarily the most popular. Any suspect suggested after the arrival of the internet is obviously a "modern" suspect, and among this group, Hutchinson is by far the most discussed and written about.

You denounce all message board participants as harbourers of "blind-faith" - presumably out of irritation that Hutchinson garners far more "traction" here than Cross does, and always will - and appeal to the world "outside the very narrow field of ripperology" in the hope that they’re all secret Hutchinson theory denouncers. Have you made the slightest attempt to canvass the views of the latter group? Have you heard a single person say, "Oh, he was interrogated as a witness. Oh well, sod that idea then, it's the royal conspiracy for me", because that's what you suggest when you exclude Hutchinson from a list of supposedly "popular" suspects which does include the royal conspiracy, and all on the basis of your erroneous "arguable versus undeniable" distinctions.

Intelligent people from “outside” ripperology, but with a passing interest in it, are going to come here, and when they get here, they will be confronted with lots and lots of lovely rousing Hutchinson’s debates, an irrefutable testament to the “traction” he’s receiving. Same with people who read a ripper book, and wish to take their interest further – they take it here and get Hutchinson-traction, bucket loads of it. That’s what happened with the screenwriters of “Whitechapel” who ended up a) agreeing with the reasons for suspecting him, and b) used him as the suspect of preference for the fictional lead detective.

Crossmere has a great deal of catching up to do, and as soon as his supporters realise that, and put a bit more effort into constructing their case, as opposed to launching unsuccessful attempts to de-construct others, the better for them.

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben
Again it is illustrative of the reason why Hutchinson theorists don't get traction for their theory as you cannot tell the difference between arguable points - eg whether Lechmere's alias would have been discovered, and a fact - eg that Hutchinson was interrogated.
One is not recorded - therefore it is an arguable point. One is recorded - it is a fact.
I have previously mentioned what I meant by traction - but to repeat...
Outside the very narrow field of 'Ripperology' - where support for one suspect or another, even if that suspect is 'unknown local', becomes a blind faith and the adherents tend to stick to 'their man' come hell or high water - Hutchinson has not gained traction. Even if he was mentioned in 'Whitechapel'.
The only suspects 'popularly recognised are Kosminski, with Druitt, Maybrick, Tumblety, Gull and the Prince coming in there as well.
'Ripperological' suspectology is not highly regarded because of this suspect selection - to sensible modern eyes Kosminski is the only half way serious suspect, and he is deeply flawed.
I would suggest that among intelligent people who have a passing interest in the case - and who are therefore not blind adherents - there is an openness to take on board a suspect who is 'normal' in so far as serial killers are normal - normal for a serial killer.
Hutchinson in some ways meets this criteria but despite several books being written and despite some very ardent enthusiasts for his candidacy, and despite the fact that he has been spoken of for quite a few years now, he has not gained traction. I pointed out why - in my opinion he hasn't gained traction.
You don't have to feel threatened all the time.

[Ben]

“You comparison between the trustworthiness of someone's hypothetical behaviour in a life and death situation, with a minor 'Ripperological' matter is a bit telling in judging how you develop your thinking.”

It was a useful comparison that successfully demonstrated that I never called you a liar, Lechmere, and it was one I didn’t have to make. Perhaps I should have left you labouring under the mistaken impression that I considered you a fibbing hound, and cared less what you thought? No, I think it important to set the record straight.

“I mentioned what I think are the stumbling blocks to Hutchinson's acceptance - the denial of basic 'knowns'”

But they’re not "stumbling blocks" because they’re not “denials”. The “basic knowns” you have outlined are either inaccurate or not remotely at odds with Hutchinson being a liar or a killer. I’m quite sure you didn’t intend this thread as an area for Ben to repeat his views on Hutchinson, but that is what you must surely have expected when you construct a post that says, in essence: here (again!) is why I think it was Cross, and not Hutchinson. As you know, I’m far from alone in noting that the Crossmere theory is predicated on “denials of basic knowns” such as the inevitability of his supposed “alias” being discovered, and the inevitability of Cross being considered potentially suspicious if ever Robert Paul was. I utterly dispute that these are “arguable” points.

“I have my view on these questions. But in my opinion the fundamental reason why Hutchinson doesn't get traction”

What do you mean by “traction”?

If you mean popular support, you’d best note that he gets more than most, and considerably more than Cross. That isn’t to say that suspect “popularity” should be considered an accurate gauge of likelihood to be a serial killer, but “traction” is what Hutchinson certainly receives.

For example would he or could he have discovered the nature of Lewis's testimony.
Would he have gone ahead if he had been seen by Lewis (if he was seen by Lewis of course).
Would he, if guilty, have given an interview to the press, would he have gone out with a policeman to 'look' for the A-man, would he have come forward at all, would he have presented such an elaborate story if guilty.

Yes, to all three, in terms of logic and the recorded behaviour of known serial killers.

But meanwhile, straight back we go to Cross...

[Lechmere]

Bridewell
Don't you mean that some time after the case he possibly split up from his wife and moved away with someone else. As people do sometimes. But I don't think it has really been proved that he went and married in Newcastle or wherever it was as there is some evidence t suggest two Albert Cadosches.
Cadosch attended the inquest and seems to have given a newspaper interview as well.

[Bridewell]

Bridewell
I may have misconstrued what you meant - I assumed you meant that despite having a wife and kids that Cadosch had disappeared?
Maybe instead you meant that like Lechmere he could not just disappear but due to his family circumstances was compelled to stick around and if necessary be called as a witness, even if he was potentially guilty of the crime?

Sorry for the delayed reply.

I cited Cadosch as an example of a man who did disappear and was not prevented from doing so by having a wife and children. The intention was simply to show that a wife and family were not necessarily an impediment to such a course of action.

[Patrick S]

Confucius he say, "Man with cross thread end up with a screw missing".

Confucius, as ever, is right on. I started a Cross thread or two recently., including this one....and now I'm just exhausted. I suppose this is how bad ideas take hold. Their proponents simply shout the loudest and the longest, until the opposition simply tires of the argument, recognizing that nothing they present will have an impact. Minds are made up. Case close. Call the cops. We have our man.

[Sam Flynn]

You’ve done a bit more on another Cross thread, which I’ll address in due course, and then with any luck, the Cross threads will be a Hutchinson-free zone.

Confucius he say, "Man with cross thread end up with a screw missing".

[Lechmere]

Ben
You comparison between the trustworthiness of someone's hypothetical behaviour in a life and death situation, with a minor 'Ripperological' matter is a bit telling in judging how you develop your thinking.

I mentioned what I think are the stumbling blocks to Hutchinson's acceptance - the denial of basic 'knowns' - and you then merely confirmed how an ardent adherent does indeed do that.

There are 'arguables' with Hutchinson.
For example would he or could he have discovered the nature of Lewis's testimony.
Would he have gone ahead if he had been seen by Lewis (if he was seen by Lewis of course).
Would he, if guilty, have given an interview to the press, would he have gone out with a policeman to 'look' for the A-man, would he have come forward at all, would he have presented such an elaborate story if guilty.
These are arguable. I haven't posed them here for Ben to do a quick refresher on why he thinks what he thinks. They are for illustrative purposes.
I have my view on these questions. But in my opinion the fundamental reason why Hutchinson doesn't get traction is not due to these 'arguables' but due to the 'denials'.
The same goes for the other candidates..
That is why I raised the other candidates - to illustrate the difference between denial of 'knowns' and disputing 'arguables'.For example the nature of Kosminski's mental illness and its effect on his capacity to be the culprit is arguable.
Of course the 'arguables' can be over more or less realistic issues.

[Ben]

He's my stalker

I'm not stalking you, Jon.

You just happen to talk the most nonsense on the subjects I happen to find the most interesting.

Your abusive post, like Observer's above it, has absolutely nothing to do with Cross, so out of respect for Admin's request and the originators of this thread, I've responded to your brand new theory on a more appropriate thread.

[Wickerman]

Oh look, I have a stalker!

Excuuuuse Me!
He's my stalker, not yours, go get your own.

No, there was no “curfew” at the Victoria Home for anyone who had purchased a daily or weekly pass.

Let's start by establishing that the Victoria Home WAS his "usual place" up until the 8th, before we go jumping to conclusions that he must have had a 'pass', that he must have lied about the place being closed at 3:00am, and subsequently, that he also must have been familiar with the local pubs on Commercial St.

If, as is quite possible, his "usual place" was another address, then none of your complaints apply.

As is always the case, too much depends on your tenuous & convenient assumptions you so frequently adopt.

Oh, and by the way.
Your confederate Mr Wroe no longer approves of "treating personal interpretation as firmly established fact" (Oh, the irony!), so try another approach, lest you fall victim to his wroth too.

[Ben]

“As for "having a bash", at the non-starter of a suspect Hutchinson, I just might do that, but my observations will not be wasted on the likes of you.”

I’m afraid the “likes of me” will respond whether the observation was “wasted” on me or not. Unless you’ve been appointed a moderator, I’m afraid you don’t have the luxury of denying people permission to respond to your posts, and if I see something I disagree with, such as a sloppily uncritical and badly thought-through condemnation of Hutchinson as a suspect, you can be assured that I’ll address it. I won’t be making any distinctions, either, between posters who contribute out of genuine disagreement with regard to Hutchinson, and those whose posting habits are motivated purely by personal animosity. If others want to debate personalities, that’s lovely, and I for one am flattered to be “wondered” about, but I’ll personally be sticking to the issues under discussion.

Hi Lechmere,

I neither said nor implied that you were "lying". I didn’t even think it, actually. It is a reality, however, that we can’t always anticipate our reactions. You’re obviously very convinced of Cross’s guilt, and that’s fair enough, but if your conviction in that regard comes anywhere close to Fisherman’s 70% likely to be the ripper, you might not be as objective as you’d hope to be in the face of what you regard as mitigating evidence (like an investigator telling his superiors that he “interrogated” Cross), if and when it came to it. I don’t doubt that many people would insist that they would behave honourably on a sinking ship (and here I’ll avoid taking advantage of the obvious “Crossmere theory = sinking ship" comparison), but who would nonetheless leap into the first lifeboat if and when the reality confronted them, and it wouldn’t make them liars either.

You bring Hutchinson into this discussion, which is an interesting decision. He was no more “interrogated” than any other witness presenting himself as such, whose truthfulness or otherwise needed to be ascertained. Abberline only used that word in his report because he was speaking to his superiors, and was bound to want to convey an impression of thoroughness. Had he been responsible for the Cross interrogation, and reported on that to his superiors, I somehow doubt he’d have written “cosied up with Cross for tea and marmite and chatted casually about his discovery of the woman’s body”.

No, there is no evidence that either police or press ever noticed the Lewis/Hutchinson connection, but there is evidence that they didn’t.

No, there was no “curfew” at the Victoria Home for anyone who had purchased a daily or weekly pass.

And no, it is not likely that Fleming was 6’7”, as it is impossible to reconcile with other details of his appearance and bodily health.

But that’s us done with Hutchinson for this thread. You’ve done a bit more on another Cross thread, which I’ll address in due course, and then with any luck, the Cross threads will be a Hutchinson-free zone. But we’ll just have to see.

All the best,
Ben

[Observer]

But you've done such a terribly bad and unconvincing job of demonstrating that he's a "non-starter", that's the problem.

By all means, have another bash at it, just not on this thread.

Oh look, I have a stalker! At least that's the reaction I would have received had I responded to a similar post submitted by you.

Also, don't tell me where to deposit my posts, it's none of your business.

As for "having a bash", at the non-starter of a suspect Hutchinson, I just might do that, but my observations will not be wasted on the likes of you.

I've had enough (much the same as friend Fisherman) of your half baked crappy theories, the smoke and mirrors, the waffle, the square pegs in round holes. No, enough is enough. Converse with Jon (Wickerman) after all, you have him captivated, at your beck and call. Yeah right, what a laugh.

You know, I sometimes wonder about you.

Of course, I'll continue to read your posts, they're good for a laugh, it amuses me no end when you get annoyed. So, keep up the good work, keep us amused, and you can't go wrong really.