Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    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?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
    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

    Comment


    • #3
      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?)
      Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
      ---------------
      Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
      ---------------

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
        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.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 04-25-2016, 10:26 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GUT View Post
            ... Mr Criss or Lechmere or whatever your real name is.
            Criss-Cross?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Criss-Cross?
              Whatever
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by GUT View Post
                Whatever
                Ugh! I was just kidding, you know...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  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.
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GUT View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GUT View Post
                          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.
                          Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                          ---------------
                          Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                          ---------------

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You are welcome to expand on that. Not that I think it helps, but anyway.
                            It always helps to dispose of red herrings, Fisherman.
                            dustymiller
                            aka drstrange

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X