So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[Damaso Marte]

Suppose that Cross, after just his first or second murder, manages to insert himself into the investigation of his own crimes by posing as a witness, and not only speaking to a police officer, but giving the police officer a name that, while not "his real name", can be traced to him, and completes this by showing up to the inquest, which must have been swarming with law enforcement officials of every kind, and talks to the media.

Some serial killers obtain great pleasure and satisfaction from inserting themelves into the investigation like this. If Cross was indeed the Ripper, he seems to be showing signs of this tendency.

Once he is in that deep, why stop? Why does he not attempt to exploit his fame and his place in the investigation?

[Columbo]

Suppose that Cross, after just his first or second murder, manages to insert himself into the investigation of his own crimes by posing as a witness, and not only speaking to a police officer, but giving the police officer a name that, while not "his real name", can be traced to him, and completes this by showing up to the inquest, which must have been swarming with law enforcement officials of every kind, and talks to the media.

Some serial killers obtain great pleasure and satisfaction from inserting themelves into the investigation like this. If Cross was indeed the Ripper, he seems to be showing signs of this tendency.

Once he is in that deep, why stop? Why does he not attempt to exploit his fame and his place in the investigation?

He didn't want to get sent to the Gallows I imagine.

Columbo

[Pcdunn]

It's an interesting question, Damaso.

Maybe:

He was an innocent man going to work, and didn't find another body. (Undoubtedly the simplest explanation.)
OR:
He was a murderer who bluffed his way out of a "sticky wicket" of a situation, and decided to have more caution next time. (Not really supported by some of the places where he left bodies, but at least he never encountered another Bobby or passerby.)
OR:
He was an innocent man who had actually seen or heard something, but kept his mouth shut about that and merely did his duty as the finder of a body in the street. (There's been discussion elsewhere that if he caught a glimpse of the killer retreating, he might have wanted to use a different name to the authorities. Even using his real address makes a certain sense, because if someone went there asking for "Cross", his wife might say, "No, luv, we're the Lechmere's!" My feeling with this is, well, understandable, but could he keep calm enough while talking to the police and at inquest that no one suspected he had seen more?)

[GUT]

He was an innocent man who had actually seen or heard something, but kept his mouth shut about that and merely did his duty as the finder of a body in the street. (There's been discussion elsewhere that if he caught a glimpse of the killer retreating, he might have wanted to use a different name to the authorities. Even using his real address makes a certain sense, because if someone went there asking for "Cross", his wife might say, "No, luv, we're the Lechmere's!" My feeling with this is, well, understandable, but could he keep calm enough while talking to the police and at inquest that no one suspected he had seen more?)

The problem I see with that option is that if he saw someone, at least a good chance that they saw him.

Thus no matter what name he gives, giving his home address is to say the least risky.

Bloke he saw has at least a fair idea of the time he leaves home, waits, watches, yep that's him, bye bye Mr Criss or Lechmere or whatever your real name is.

[Fisherman]

An excellent question, Damaso!

The first thing I would do, would be to warn against the notion that Lechmere would have come forward out of a genuine wish to do so.

Had this been the case, then yes, I would have expected him to keep at it.

But I think he felt pressured to come forward by the circumstances. It was not a decision he would have made if Paul had not come along, as far as I can tell.

He joined up with Paul as he left Bucks Row. It offered a very good possibility that he would not be regarded as the killer, but insted as a working man trekking to work with a comrade. And if he had said "No, I will not help to find a PC", he would have looked less innocent than he did. If he was building an alibi of sorts, the he did the clever thing.

Plus, he did not come forward to the inquest until AFTER the Paul interview. Would he have done so if the interview had not surfaced? I donīt think so.
It seems to me that the picture they gave Mizen was one where they were not the finders: "A woman has been found in Bucks Row", "You are wanted in Bucks Row", "Another PC awaits you there" and so on.
Not once does Mizen say that he was told "We found this woman in Bucks Row".
On has to wonder why.

Anyhow, this is how I see it - he never wanted to contact the police, but realized that he stood to gain from it, whereas not contacting them could make him the prime suspect. Therefore, he got involved in the investigation - but when he stayed away from it afterwards, I think it was in line with his original intentions.

[Fisherman]

... Mr Criss or Lechmere or whatever your real name is.

Criss-Cross?

[GUT]

Criss-Cross?

Whatever

[Fisherman]

Whatever

Ugh! I was just kidding, you know...

[GUT]

Ugh! I was just kidding, you know...

So was I Fish, so was I.

But even if he had used Criss, or even Gut, giving his right address and place of work leaves him open to getting knocked around, or worse, if the killer thought that Lechmere had seen him.

So in a nutshell I don't buy that possible reason.

[drstrange169]

Not once does Mizen say that he was told "We found this woman in Bucks Row".
On has to wonder why.

One can wonder or one can check the evidence Mizen gave and find the answer;-)

Mysteries offered where none exist.

[Fisherman]

So was I Fish, so was I.

But even if he had used Criss, or even Gut, giving his right address and place of work leaves him open to getting knocked around, or worse, if the killer thought that Lechmere had seen him.

So in a nutshell I don't buy that possible reason.

Lechmere HAD seen the killer - in a mirror...

Well, I canīt have anybody buying every reason out here. Iīm fine as long as they see the possibility.

[Fisherman]

One can wonder or one can check the evidence Mizen gave and find the answer;-)

Mysteries offered where none exist.

You are welcome to expand on that.

Not that I think it helps, but anyway.

[Pcdunn]

The problem I see with that option is that if he saw someone, at least a good chance that they saw him.

Thus no matter what name he gives, giving his home address is to say the least risky.

Bloke he saw has at least a fair idea of the time he leaves home, waits, watches, yep that's him, bye bye Mr Criss or Lechmere or whatever your real name is.

Oh, agreed. I only mentioned it as it has been discussed here previously.
I much prefer my first possibility, really.

[drstrange169]

You are welcome to expand on that. Not that I think it helps, but anyway.

It always helps to dispose of red herrings, Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

It always helps to dispose of red herrings, Fisherman.

I agree - which is why I am waiting for you to prove that there is such a red herring involved here.

Not just that YOU think there is - proof that there IS.

You see, I think you are the red herring yourself.