Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Bridewell]

I agree entirely with your points, Bridewell. To quote others and then respond to their specific points, drag the cursor over the offending statement/argument, right click on copy, and then right click paste into the body of the message. Highlight the message and click on the quote icon - the one that looks like a speech bubble.

Hope this helps!

Bridewell - I was just about to tell you about the speech bubble when Ben rudely interrupted. Sorry about that. It took me ages to discover the quote function. I'm a bit slow (not suggesting that you are of course!)

Thanks Ben & Sally. If this post turns out right, then I've learned how to do it.

Apologies, Fisherman, for having used bold type in my previous posts which makes your point look kind of 'shouty'. That wasn't the intention - I enjoy our verbal jousts, much as we may disagree on occasions

Regards, Bridewell

[Sally]

A couple of things..

First thing -

Lechmere is to be congratulated on his discovery of Crosses Mums House in 1888. Well Don Lech! I think others had worked out that she lived nearby already, however, so this piece of information doesn't materially alter our knowledge of Cross' background. It tells us that she didn't move from the area, which is useful to know.

Second thing -

Regarding the 'nameswop'. It seems a little odd that the one and only time we witness Cross using the name Cross was in connection with a police matter. Why couldn't this be because he had police friends and acquaintances that knew him as Cross? As the adopted son (in effect) of a policeman he may well have known many - and his mother too - unless we think the family lived in a bubble? It's a possibility at least.

The specifics of the name seem curious to me. I'd be more convinced that Cross was up to no good if he'd chosen another name entirely.

I think all this theorising regarding Cross as Ripper is all well and good; but better to consider all possibilities before we get carried away.

[Ben]

I agree entirely with your points, Bridewell. To quote others and then respond to their specific points, drag the cursor over the offending statement/argument, right click on copy, and then right click paste into the body of the message. Highlight the message and click on the quote icon - the one that looks like a speech bubble.

Hope this helps!

Hi Curious,

I owe you a response from many pages ago, but no, there was nothing remotely “callous” about leaving the body and seeking out a policeman. Cross would have been well aware, from previous experience of walking to work, that the nearest constable on beat was never too far away. If Nichols was not yet dead, this was the best way to expedite the arrival of more experienced assistance, and if she wasn’t, the most prudent course of action was to let someone in authority know as quickly as possible. Cross made it clear, however, that he thought the victim was dead, rather than dying. Approaching the nearest policeman was most assuredly not a sensible move if he was the killer and still had the knife on him.

It is not the case that Cross had no idea that violence was involved. His first impression was that she had been “outraged”, and if he suspected that this event had occurred very recently, it is only natural that he didn’t fancy walking the length of notoriously dark and dodgy Old Montague Street alone in the small hours. Joseph Levy didn’t relish the prospect of going home by himself after seeing Eddowes and her presumed killer quietly talking together in Church Passage, and that was before any question arose of an “outrage” having taken place, or about to take place. Such concerns would account very plausibly indeed for Cross’ accompaniment of Paul.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

I donīt know. And we canīt ask them, can we?
We don't need to. "1am (or thereabouts)" is a strange time to be starting or ending a visit to your dear old mum.
Moreover, he would have left his motherīs before he killed, since you canīt do both simultaneously. And to be fair, it would seem that the murder should be placed in the vicinity of 12.45-1.00 to be correct, potentially peeling off a quarter of an hour on your bid. It would also have taken him some time to walk to the murder site, taking more time off. Maybe he saw Stride there and decided to have a go at her, but waited for the right opportunity before striking, further slicing some time off. So whatever time he left his motherīs if he was the killer, it was NOT 1 AM!
What a good job I said "1am (or thereabouts)" then!
"it would also have taken him some time to walk to the murder site" -
not too long, obviously or the argument that his mother's address was close to the murder scene rather goes by the by, does it not?
But surely, Bridewell, the TRULY interesting thing here is that Cross HAD a reason to walk Berner Street? And surely, it is compelling that a murder that could NOT be knit to his way to work, actually took place on this spot? Equally one must ask oneself why this particular murder, perpetrated at a spot he did NOT pass on his way to work, instead was committed on a Saturday night?
"Equally one must ask oneself" why, after supposedly committing the Stride murder, his route home to Bethnal Green took him through Mitre Square.

"The argument presented hitherto has been, among other things, that Cross knew this route well because he used it every day on his way to work. That's fine as far as it goes. We can't then stand the thing on its head and argue that Paul's entrance "was something Cross could not have foreseen". If he walked that way to work every day - as suggested on this thread - then he must have had a pretty fair idea as to how many people did the same. He can't be cunning and observant, but also stupid and unobservant surely?"
You are having me on, yes? Surely, this is not something you argue seriously? But what the hell - Iīll bite!
To begin with, it is wrong to say that he was specifically used to the Doveton Street - Broad Street tour. I didn't say it.
He had only moved to Doveton Street a short time before the Nicholīs murder.Nor did I argue that - what I argued was that he had gone to work for more than 20 years, and thus he was very familiar with the streets being patrolled by PC:s using beats.[/B]
But even if we were to make the assumption that he knew the Doveton Street - Broad Street route very well (he had walked it less than a hundred times, though, going to his job), then why would we assume that he had ever seen Paul?
I didn't say he had seen Paul. I said he must have been aware how many other people used that route at that time of the morning. "less than a hundred times" would give him a pretty good idea of how busy the road was at that time.
So how should he have foreseen Pauls appearance on the scene..??
I didn't say he should have foreseen Paul's appearance, but he was standing in the middle of the road when Paul first saw him. You are saying this was because he had just killed Nichols. I'm saying it was because he wanted to get help from the first person who came along. It happened to be Paul.
"when Paul first catches sight of Cross, he is emphatically not "virtually standing over a body", as has been previously alleged."

Other reports have Paul stating that Cross stood "where the body was". I for one have not said that he stood virtually over the body - but I think there is a good chance that he did.
I don't care what "other reports" say as they are secondary accounts. The only living people present were Cross & Paul. Paul says Cross was standing in the middle of the road, therefore, unless Paul was lying, Cross was standing in the middle of the road.

"Emergency reaction? In danger of being caught? Has to come up with a cover story? Not credible because, even when Cross is flagging him down, even when Cross steps onto the pavement, Paul side-steps into the roadway in order to get past. He's then touched on the shoulder so that he has to interrupt his walk to work and accompany Cross to where the body is.Paul's account exonerates Cross, so they're either both lying, or Cross is innocent."

"It's game over for me as far as Cross being a suspect is concerned."
Youīre welcome. It is always like that, you see - some agree, some donīt.

The best,
Fisherman

And, based on Paul's unambiguous account, I don't.

Can someone tell me how to paginate so that it's clear who's saying what?
I'm using bold type, but I know there's a better way as others manage it.

[Fisherman]

Iīve already done that, Robert; conjured up a truly daring and diabolical murder, that is. Thing is, it is based on solid evidence and the inquest reports only. Youīll see - and THEN you can cross over. But not yet!

I donīt smoke, by the way, so I guess I would have to opt for BS manīs role. Problem is, I am the tallest guy of Lechmere and me, and I would probably fit the physical description of Pipeman better.

Weīll have to work that one out sometime.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

I might Cross over given more evidence, Fish. But I give you and Lechmere your due - just as the police were fortunate that Sherlock Holmes never tried his hand at crime, so you and Lechmere could have conjured up a truly daring and diabolical murder in 1888 had you been around then. Whch one would be Pipeman and which BS, I will let the pair of you decide.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"In 1888, one of the founding members of the Football League were Preston North End - a very good side.

But on with Mr Cross."

Speaking of that, will you Cross over to my side in the end?

I like Preston, by the way - bought my fishing boat there, actually!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

In 1888, one of the founding members of the Football League were Preston North End - a very good side.

But on with Mr Cross.

[Fisherman]

In the end, I side with Lechmere!

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

North side, not end

[Fisherman]

Seeing as I got the rest wrong, perhaps ... but no, Iīll stand by the north end. Or side, to be precise. Sides can be ends too. Broad ends.

Fisherman

[Robert]

Um....shouldn't it be "the east end of the street" Fish?

[Fisherman]

Eh ... that should read "tarpaulin/body" actually ... and "the north end of the street".

I DO need that rest, apparently.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jeez, Robert - working with this material is working in a world of mirrors ...

At any rate, and whatever interest you award it, I think that Cross/Lechmere WANTED Paul to come to the body with him. And it stands to reason that he would have been of the meaning that the "tarpaulin/boy" was discernable from the north end of the end of the street, and "makeoutable" as a woman from the middle of it. No matter if he had not done the innocent bypasser routine himself.

Now, not a word about Freud, if you please!

Ugh - I need a rest ...

Fisherman

[Robert]

"And Cross would have known that Paul was not going to see the body because ...? He would have been sure that Paul would not cross the street because ...?

Consider, Bridewell, that there was a man standing in the road when Paul came along. Reasonably, this would be where Pauls attention focused, thus reducing the chance that he would notice Polly. But would Cross realize that this was the case? He had himself not had any trouble spotting Nichols, and the reasonable thing to think would then be that Paul would not fail in that way either."

Fish, Cross never did spot Nichols. He's guilty in this scenario - remember?