Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Wickerman]

[B]

It must have taken him alot of time and thought to write, so maybe it would be polite to try answering it seriously ?

Certainly a serious proposal, which this clearly is, deserves a respectfull reply.

I'm just not a suspect-orientated person. As much as I respect Lechmere I feel the points offered fall short of raising Cross to any kind of candidacy as Jack the Ripper.
What we might consider suspicious activity today was apparently just normal in the East-end. Having two names is not strange for the East-end in this period, in fact we read of it quite regular.

Even if we choose to think it means he is not being honest, well, people use different names for a variety of reasons. Having two fathers, ie; two family names. Owing money, Being admitted to hospital. Talking to the press.
Even dishonesty does not automatically imply he's JtR.

Not raising the alarm on finding a woman laid on the street is not suspicious, neither one of them knew she was dead, nor even bleeding. Maybe they were a little too casual about it all but homeless people did sleep and die on the streets in Whitechapel. She was "either drunk or dead", but there was no indication, in their eyes at least, that a crime had been committed.

I've just touched on the first points which come to mind but as I read through the list I had all kinds of questions. I just don't feel this line of inquiry holds any promise.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

My views are that neither Cross nor Paul are good suspects.In comparing Paul,I am using Fisherman's view that the murderer was a risk taker.That Paul took a risk in going back the w ay he came,observed Cross approaching,w as successful in hiding in a dark street,then risked going back to the body,having the perfect alibi of arriving after the body had been found.Of course I do not think it happened that way.The possibility is that it could haveThe impossibility is proving that it couldn't.The 'Jumping out' used by two posters,is an untruth.I never said that.There are now I believe,well over a hundred suspects considered to have been JTR,by reason of the POSSIBILITY that they could have been.Cross is just another one .The probability is that Cross and Paul were two innocent men on their way to work.

[Errata]

Cadosch claimed that he heard something fall against the fence where the body was later found. I guess your 'witness who found the body but didn't come forward' explanation is one possibility, but perhaps rather improbable.

If the murder had already taken place, then whatever (or whoever) fell must have either landed on Chapman or come close to doing so. If the murder had not already taken place, and this was not the sound of her body falling, it would mean that whatever did fall was moved away and replaced almost immediately by Chapman's body - which seems absurd.

I think the conventional interpretation is the most likely to be correct

Regards, Bridewell

Maybe, but I'm a klutz, so I can totally see myself getting out onto the stairs and seeing a corpse, bending over to check and see if she was in fact dead, overbalancing and almost face planting into the dead body before catching myself on the fence.

Of course, me being me, I would not have said "No!" but probably let go with a seemingly endless flow of profanity.

Which to me argues more than anything for it being Chapman who hit the fence. He heard "No!" not "Oh my God" not "Lady, you can't sleep here" not "Holy ****!"... really none of the exclamations one typically utters when surprised or when confronted with a problem way above one's pay grade. "No!" is always a shortened statement. "No, don't hurt me" "No, don't do that" "No it can't be true" etc. But it's not short for "Holy crap there's a dead whore in the yard."

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Ah. And there I was thinking this was a serious discussion.
Well in that case, anybody can be a suspect.
How utterly ridiculous."

It´s a sad thing, Sally, that you cannot conduct a discussion like this without trying to be scornful where no scorn is called for.

What did you expect this thread would produce? A signed confession from Lechmere? Is that what it would take for you to accept the validity of him as a suspect?

Then I´m afraid you are going to have to live with a lot of "utterly ridiculous" suggestions in the future too - all of them, to be more exact.

If this is all you can contribute, I think it would be a lot better if you did not contribute at all. As you may have noticed, the rest of the posters out here are discussing Lechmere´s viability in a much more productive way. It would be a lot nicer if you could see your way through to doing so too. After all, Lechmere provides the only case where we have the type of elements at hand that any police corps, looking for a serialist, would take an interest in; a proven, useful geographical correlation, a proven time connection, a proven changed identity and a proven attendance at a murder site when the murder was committed.

Now, I know from experience that you favour Hutchinson as the killer, Sally. Please make the comparison here.
How many murder victims can we tie geographically to Hutchinson?
How sure are we that he used an alias, given that there is a George Hutchinson whose signature matches the witnesses´, according to a document examiner.
How certain are we that Hutchinson was ever closer to Mary Kelly the night she died than ten yards? If, that is, he was even there on that night.

Please observe, Sally, that your preferred candidate makes a considerably less viable case in all of these three important parameters. If we are to call the Lechmere bid "utterly ridiculous" - then what shall we call the Hutchinson bid?

If you have something useful to contribute on this thread, I would be happy to hear it. If you remain convinced that the suggestion is "utterly ridiculous", well then rest assured that your view has been taken to the protocol, and there is no further call for you to repeat yourself.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"Ah. And there I was thinking this was a serious discussion.
Well in that case, anybody can be a suspect.
How utterly ridiculous."

It´s a sad thing, Sally, that you cannot conduct a discussion like this without trying to be scornful where no scorn is called for.

What did you expect this thread would produce? A signed confession from Lechmere? Is that what it would take for you to accept the validity of him as a suspect?

Then I´m afraid you are going to have to live with a lot of "utterly ridiculous" suggestions in the future too - all of them, to be more exact.

If this is all you can contribute, I think it would be a lot better if you did not contribute at all. As you may have noticed, the rest of the posters out here are discussing Lechmere´s viability in a much more productive way. It would be a lot nicer if you could see your way through to doing so too. After all, Lechmere provides the only case where we have the type of elements at hand that any police corps, looking for a serialist, would take an interest in; a proven, useful geographical correlation, a proven time connection, a proven changed identity and a proven attendance at a murder site when the murder was committed.

Now, I know from experience that you favour Hutchinson as the killer, Sally. Please make the comparison here.
How many murder victims can we tie geographically to Hutchinson?
How sure are we that he used an alias, given that there is a George Hutchinson whose signature matches the witnesses´, according to a document examiner.
How certain are we that Hutchinson was ever closer to Mary Kelly the night she died than ten yards? If, that is, he was even there on that night.

Please observe, Sally, that your preferred candidate makes a considerably less viable case in all of these three important parameters. If we are to call the Lechmere bid "utterly ridiculous" - then what shall we call the Hutchinson bid?

If you have something useful to contribute on this thread, I would be happy to hear it. If you remain convinced that the suggestion is "utterly ridiculous", well then rest assured that your view has been taken to the protocol, and there is no further call for you to repeat yourself.

All the best,
Fisherman

Nice Try Fish.

But unfortunately -

My comment was in response to yours - which was to the effect that we don't need 'hard facts' to make a good suspect. And I stand by my response. It is ridiculous.

As to your first allegation - you will notice that since Lechmere posted his thesis I haven't said anything - apart from the above. So its no use you accusing me of 'scorning' either him, or Cross, on this thread - as patently it hasn't happened.

As to your second allegation - I think thats in your mind Fisherman. And note that it was you who brought Hutchinson into the thread. Now don't be blaming me if others take you up on your invitation to compare him 'suspectwise'.

And I'm sure we'd all enjoy that, wouldn't we?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Dealing with Lechmere’s observations then: there is nothing unusual or suspicious about the fact that Nichols' body was tampered with by those who found her."

That would depend, Ben. If Lechmere WAS the killer, then he may have had blood on him. Therefore, he may have needed to find himself an excuse for it, and such an excuse could be gained by touching Nichols´ body. Note how he encourages Paul to do the same, rather insistently. The tampering could be anything but innocent. Reversely, it may have been ALL innocent - just like you say, it had been odd if the two had done nothing at all.

"It shouldn’t be considered remotely unusual that Cross didn’t check for abdominal injuries on Nichols’ supine form in the dark. Neil didn’t either. The two carmen were uncertain that Nichols was dead, but did not simply head on their “merry way to work”. Their immediate priority was to alert a constable, and they knew from extensive experience of walking that route that they were likely to find one before reaching work, courtesy of the beat system, which can hardly have escaped their attention. Given the severity of the incident, it is not surprising that the two carmen stuck together when seeking out a constable. It meant they were in a position to support each other’s accounts and so create a convincing impression to any policeman they encountered. This would more than account for both Cross’s accompaniment of Paul and his longer route to work."

It´s one out of two here too - the possibility that Cross wanted to check out all he could about Paul remains an alternative good explanation to his choice of Hanbury Street. The two had met Mizen down at Baker´s Row, and from there, there was a choice of the quicker Old Montague Street or the slower Hanbury Street, and in spite of being late, Cross chose the slower alternative.

"His presence at the crime scene is legitimized by the fact that he was walking en-route to work. "

Which is why he stayed unsuspected. But that does not preclude that he could have actively chosen his road to work as the best and most useful window of opportunity.
We can´t say that William Bonin was a friendly, innocent chap just because he had the bad luck of getting his working routes strewn with killed people, can we? And we DO know that serialists are often people who kill along their normally trodden paths.
As for the difficulties involved in walking on to Pickford´s and staying undetected, you are correct: it takes an explanation. But we both can conjure up/think of a good many such explanations, I think. I will refrain, though, from suggesting any such special one, for knowing that it will immediately be attacked. Let´s just accept that there MAY have been a reasonable explanation.

"Equally unsuspicious is Cross’s other name of Lechmere. Serial killers will often use aliases, but we’re not talking about an alias here. Lechmere and Cross were the actual surnames of his father and stepfather respectively."

Surely, Ben, you have noticed that it can be proven that the name Cross was never used by Lechmere on any of the occasions we can fish out of history? It therefore remains that it IS an anomaly.

"Those who champion Cross as a suspect tend to overlook the fact that someone was bound to find Nichols’ body eventually, and the chances of that discoverer being a policeman or someone on their way to work were always going to be very high indeed. So I have to ask: what is so “suspicious” about the inevitability of someone like Cross finding the body?"

That is a strange way of wording it. It all boils down to the question whether he was the killer or not, of course! It stands to reason that Nichols´body would not rot away undetected and disappear on the East End streets, but how does THAT prove that Lechmere did not kill her? And are we now to dismiss as uninteresting and irrelevant the fact that Lechmere spent an unknown quantity of time - it could have been one and it could have been twenty minutes - ALONE with Polly Nichols, after which time she was dead and mutilated? Are we to look away from the fact that Lechmere deposed that he had left Doveton Street at 3.20 or 3.30, BOTH of which times would have meant that he should not have been in Buck´s Row at 3.40-3.45. If he was on the money giving those times, then he would have Buck´s Row way behind him at the time of his find.
Context, Ben, is everything at times.

"Somewhat disturbingly, a few of the contributors to this thread seem inappropriately enthusiastic about Cross’s supposed good ripper candidature before they’ve even seen any evidence at all, and I’ll bet some of them know nothing of Michael Connor’s article to boot"

I can only answer for myself, Ben, and I read Connors article when it came out. Whether I am "inappropriately enthusiastic" about Lechmere is, I believe, written in the stars, but that does not deter me much - the same goes for EVERY suspect so far. The only thing that can make me "inappropriately enthusiastic" is of course if I am wrong.
As for the evidence material I know of, I have told you before that there is more than I have spoken of. The research behind it is not mine, and therefore I will leave it to the responsible party to make his own decisions about the extent to which he wishes to go public with it. It is none of my business.
I do, however, point to the fact that what has been presented on this thread has significantly added to Connor´s finds - mainly by laying down that Lechmeres mother and daughter lived just beyond Berner Street. From your side, all it bought me was a questioning of the reliability of my convictions, and that´s fine by me. Others, though, seem to have been able to appreciate the breakthrough.

"You can do a lot worse than Cross as suspects go, but you can certainly do better."

It´s a good thing that you think so, since it will provide "chewing resistance" and scrutiny of the Lechmere case! I don´t agree, however - I really don´t think that any other suspect can match our carman. All the other cases are built on much less solid grounds, the way I see it, whereas Lechmere provides down to earth arguments.

That does not mean that I state for any fact that he WAS the Ripper. It would take far, far more to do so. But what we have on him is extremely interesting nevertheless.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Sally - not interested.

Fisherman

[Monty]

It is my guess that cross presented himself to a police station to make his statement. Paul didn't and was raided at a later date. Cross appeared at the inquest on Monday with the murder taking place on Friday.

This is very true Lechmere.

Either way his details would have been obtained.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"It is my guess that cross presented himself to a police station to make his statement. Paul didn't and was raided at a later date."

And this, of course, when taken in combination with Lechmere´s appearance in working clothes at the inquest, may well point to an eagerness on his behalf not to have the police attending at his house, and to keep his own wife and family in the dark. The beauty of such tactics - if that was what it was - would be that what was really a wish to conceal instead was presented as a wish to come clear and help out.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Ben, all

I may have misunderstood you, Lechmere - in which case, please accept my apologies in advance - but you seem to be suggesting that Robert Paul, as the second person to discover the body, was interrogated by the police as a suspect, but Charles Cross, as the first person to discover the body, was never once considered in the capacity of a suspect. I’m afraid that strikes me as unlikely to the point of being impossible to accept.

That's what I understood too, and could not accept either.

Somewhat disturbingly, a few of the contributors to this thread seem inappropriately enthusiastic about Cross’s supposed good ripper candidature before they’ve even seen any evidence at all, and I’ll bet some of them know nothing of Michael Connor’s article to boot

True. We've been told several times that there was enough evidence to make Cross a top-suspect, so I read and re-read the whole thread, in case I would have missed something, but honestly I couldn't find much. Lechmere and Fish's posts are interesting, but they cannot justify, in my opinion, that overfowing enthusiasm.

Don’t get be wrong; I don’t mean to dismiss Cross as a possible suspect. The idea is not totally unreasonable and represents a step, to my mind, in the right general direction. If someone were to tell me that the killer was either Tumblety, Druitt or Cross, I'd be amazed, but I would pick the last mentioned with little hesitation. You can do a lot worse than Cross as suspects go, but you can certainly do better.

My thoughts exactly - for the time being.Cross being a viable suspect, the discussion must go on.

[DVV]

witnesses

Assuming Cross was the Ripper, who were the witnesses that saw him ?
Was Cross Mrs Long stranger ?
BSM ? Sailor Man ?
And in Miller's Court : Blotchy, Astrakhan, Wideawake ?

[DVV]

Mizen

I would point out (again) that Cross and Paul accounts aren't conflicting.
The problem is rather between Mizen and the Cross-Paul duet.
What shall we make of Mizen's confused account at the inquest ?

[Fisherman]

David:

"What shall we make of Mizen's confused account at the inquest ?"

Another policeman - Neil - wanted Mizen in Buck´s Row - that was completely true. The problem was, of course, that neither Cross/Lechmere nor Paul said anything about that PC. But as such, I don´t think the testimony very strange. Cross/Lechmere and Paul left Nichols without any attendance in Buck´s Row, and that was somewhat odd. Mizen may have made the presumption that one out of two ought to have stayed and tried to help Nichols, and when none of them did, he perhaps thought that this pointed to Neil having arrived and sent them for help, and so he misremembered what he had been told. To just leave a person in Nichols´condition without help, is rather a strange thing, no matter if you are late for work or not.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

I see nothing strange,once the police were informed and attented at the body,for Cross and Paul to continue to work.They were not in a position to do anything further.There is no information that either was asked or directed by the police to stay.They could not interfere.So they did what I think any citizen of that period would do,and that is continue on,believing the police were the proper persons to attend to matters.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I see nothing strange,once the police were informed and attented at the body,for Cross and Paul to continue to work.They were not in a position to do anything further.There is no information that either was asked or directed by the police to stay.They could not interfere.So they did what I think any citizen of that period would do,and that is continue on,believing the police were the proper persons to attend to matters."

Then I hope, Harry, that if I should ever fall down on the street, my life perhaps hanging on a thread, that somebody else than you will be the one who finds me ...

" ' ang on, Guv - there´s a lady lying here!"

"Really?"

"Yup"

"And why would that be?"

"Couldn´t say, Guv - but she seems dying or drunk to me"

"What a nuisance! Shall we try and help?"

"Wait a sec, and I´ll check me watch ...eeehhh ...no, nope; we´re five minutes late."

"Ah! Well, let´s not beat about the bush, then. Off we go! Maybe we´ll find ourselves somebody who can sort her out."

"Now, there´s an idea!"

Nothing strange, was it?

The best,
Fisherman