Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Errata]

I also believe that Chapman was long dead by 5.30.

Cadosch didn't see Annie and the Ripper, he only heard something fall against
the fence, and we assume that it must have been Annie's body. Maybe it wasn't.

I wonder if, for example, someone couldn't have discovered the body, fallen heavily against the fence in shock, and decided not to come forward to the Police and be involved in the case ?

If something like that were true, then Cadosch's timing has nothing to do with
the TOD.

It's an interesting theory. But I would need an answer to one question. Who could possibly be in that yard to discover the body who did not have a vital interest in contacting the police, if for no other reason than to get the body out of the yard?

I mean, I'm as likely to not get involved as the next guy. My apartment manager died sitting upright on the half wall surrounding the pool. Now I didn't know the guy at all, just on sight, and I was late for work. And in fact, I had half convinced myself he was not in fact dead, since he was still sitting upright. And there was a minute when I debated making it someone else's problem, but in the end, it was just too damn creepy for me to not call 911. And he didn't have innards flung about. And I had this weird vision of everyone who passed him not getting involved, and then I would have to come home with him just sitting there dead with a burned out cigarette still clenched in his lips. I wouldn't have been able to think of anything else all day. It was like Curly in City Slickers.

I mean, obviously people who were not supposed to be in that yard were in fact in that yard. Annie Chapman for example. I just can't think of anyone who would be there at 5:30 in the morning who didn't live there.

[Rubyretro]

Hi Fisherman,

I agree that Cross is a long way from being the worst candidate to be JtR,

I certainly agree with that

but I haven't seen any hard evidence presented as yet. It's all circumstantial. It's entirely correct to suggest that a person who finds a body would be subject to some scrutiny. Why do you think he wasn't?

It was at the beginning of the series. If my memory serves me right, then Smith was the victim of a gang, and the suspect for Tabram was thought to be a soldier.
Also, there is the fact that Lechmere gave his name to Mizen as 'Cross', which was the surname of his Stepfather who was a Police Officer. I've always thought that he might have done that because the 'Cross' connection was known to local Police. Maybe the connection was enough for him not to have been 'checked out' as thoroughly as someone else might have been ?
Although we've already seen that, without fingerprinting, DNA evidence, and cct cameras, it would have been difficult to check anyone out adequately.

And back in 1888, four out of five victims were found along the streets where Cross/Lechmere walked to job or to visit his mother.
This is true of any number of people who worked early shifts in Spitalfields and lived in Bethnal Green, surely? Why does it implicate Cross?

It's like playing that Mastermind game. True that lots of people might have the right colours, but with Cross we're getting quite a few black pegs....if you
get my meaning.

He reported finding the body. What reason is there to believe that he was lying. Yes, if he was the Ripper he would lie, but where is the evidence that he was lying? The argument can't be presented backwards, by assuming that he was the Ripper and then arguing that, therefore he lied about finding the body. It's a circular argument. In effect:

The best suspects have to be those which can definitely be place at a scene of crime. Full stop. After that we can look at the clues surrounding them.

Cross could have been the killer and therefore told lies about finding the body.
Because he lied about finding the body, he must have been the Ripper!

Not at all. But looking at different clues (its not 'evidence', ok), then Cross makes a good suspect.

We also have the nameswop.

which is evidence of what exactly?

It isn't evidence. It's an interesting detail which may or may not have some significance.

I've seen no hard evidence in what is posted so far, just speculation based on the circumstance of Cross finding the body

.
But, and I repeat, the fact that he can placed standing over a body makes him a better candidate than most of the usual suspects.

Man finds body. Man waylays first person he can and reports what he has found. What is suspicious about that? It's exactly what I would have done. How about you?

granted.

If he was the Ripper, it would be far less risky to just shout to Paul,

"This woman's in a bad way, mate. Can you go and find a policeman?"

He could then have melted away, unidentified, once Paul had left the scene.

Assuming that Paul was biddable and not curious. Maybe Cross and Paul had met on the way to work before ? (that would be logical), and maybe Paul would have identified him anyway ? In which case, running away would have looked very suspicious indeed.

I don't see anything remotely suspicious in what Cross did. The suspicion is based on what is being speculated that he might have done, which isn't evidence, however much you may wish it were otherwise.

Regards, Bridewell.

We only have the 'known suspects' to consider at this remove, and we can only look at the clues and speculate. Based on that, Cross is in my Top Two.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

It's an interesting theory. But I would need an answer to one question. Who could possibly be in that yard to discover the body who did not have a vital interest in contacting the police, if for no other reason than to get the body out of the yard?

Well, for example, Mrs Long says that she saw a couple in the street at a very similar timing to Cadosch. She obviously thought that they looked like a
prostitute and her client, because it was assumed afterwards that they were Annie and JTR.....although how Mrs Long could have noticed enough details about strangers that she was passing in a hurry on her way to work to have definitely identified Annie (a woman whom she didn't know) is a moot point.

Let us say that she could identify the woman as being a prostitute at least.

We know that the door was open to number 29, and that prostitutes used it for business (because Annie did).
So another couple could have gone into the yard and have discovered the body.

Would a married man, finding himself with a prostitute standing over a murdered woman in a yard on his way to work, have wanted to go to the Police ?

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"I didn`t think Cross went near Hanbury St. I know Paul worked around the corner from 29 Hanbury St but Cross left him that morning somewhere near Old Montague St."

The Times, September 4:th:

"George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock. Witness walked along Buck's-row, and saw something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin. He then saw it was a woman. A man came along and witness spoke to him. They went and looked at the body. Witness, having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so. He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark. They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead. The constable replied "All right." The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court. He appeared to be a carman, and was a stranger to the witness."

They parted at Corbett´s Court, Jon.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Hi Ruby - long time no see! And thank you!

To be honest, I owe a lot of my insights into Cross to Lechmere, who has done some very interesting research into our carman. But I thoroughly agree that the arguments that can be presented as a result of this, are good, solid arguments.

I´m very pleased to see you seemingly agree with this. Once again thanks!

The best,
Fisherman

Happy to see you, Fish !

I am not yet entirely convinced by Lechmere/Cross, but I agree that the argument for him as JTR is very strong.

He's in my Top Two favourite known suspects.

It's all very interesting to me anyway.

[curious]

I also believe that Chapman was long dead by 5.30.

Cadosch didn't see Annie and the Ripper, he only heard something fall against
the fence, and we assume that it must have been Annie's body. Maybe it wasn't.

I wonder if, for example, someone couldn't have discovered the body, fallen heavily against the fence in shock, and decided not to come forward to the Police and be involved in the case ?

If something like that were true, then Cadosch's timing has nothing to do with
the TOD.

Hi, Ruby,
I believe that to be the case as well.

[DVV]

I've read the whole thread and I still don't see why Cross should be a (good) suspect.
This candidacy reminds me that of PC Watkins...

[Rubyretro]

Hi, Ruby,
I believe that to be the case as well.

In which case the TOD for Chapman is open for Cross as a suspect.

[Rubyretro]

This candidacy reminds me that of PC Watkins...

Hardly, David...

I mean what might geographically or timing wise tie Watkins to any other of the murder sites ?

[DVV]

Basically their candidacies are the same.
I still see nothing against Cross, except that he was on the spot soon after the murder, just like Watkins.
But I've read that "solid arguments" were coming... soon...

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;212913]

Well, for example, Mrs Long says that she saw a couple in the street at a very similar timing to Cadosch. She obviously thought that they looked like a
prostitute and her client, because it was assumed afterwards that they were Annie and JTR.....although how Mrs Long could have noticed enough details about strangers that she was passing in a hurry on her way to work to have definitely identified Annie (a woman whom she didn't know) is a moot point.

Let us say that she could identify the woman as being a prostitute at least.

We know that the door was open to number 29, and that prostitutes used it for business (because Annie did).

So another couple could have gone into the yard and have discovered the body.

Would a married man, finding himself with a prostitute standing over a murdered woman in a yard on his way to work, have wanted to go to the Police ?

No I agree, it's not that outsiders wouldn't be there, or that someone looking to score and ending up with an eyeful of a mutilated corpse might not want to come forward. It's the timing of it. It was 5:30 in the morning and the sun was up, or almost. That just seems like an odd time to be picking up prostitutes.

I'm a fan of the theory, I'm just trying to think who would be there when people were waking up and getting their day started.

[Robert]

Thumps on fences can be caused by cats, I suppose.

[lynn cates]

thump

Hello Robert. If I recall properly, the thump--on this view--was caused by the second couple nearly fainting when Annie was discovered.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

I can't say that I really buy the idea of someone falling onto the fence in shock. It may have happened, of course, but there you go.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lynn

I can't say that I really buy the idea of someone falling onto the fence in shock. It may have happened, of course, but there you go.

In swansons report on the murder he highlights the fact that Dr Phillips estimated the time of death two hours before. In the light of that Swanson states that the tesitimony of the three witnesses is worthless.